Vehicular Manslaughter

[CdwJava]

After finding one news article on the subject, I understand why the charges exist. I take issue with the contention that reconstruction expert can assign percentage fault at 51% and 49% but I suppose that's simply a restatement of who was a little more at fault in his opinion.

I also think the state will have a hard time proving that the difference between 55 and 90 will mean the difference between life and death. That ought to prove tough. But, depending on the makes and models of the cars, it might be possible.

 

[sandyclaus]

As I have said in previous posts, and I will repeat here - if the driver had NOT been going twice the speed limit, they wouldn't have been at the intersection at the time and place where the accident happened. If the other drivers blew the stop sign, either it would have been a different car they may have collided with, or there wouldn't have been a collision at all.

In MY opinion, this makes a huge bit of difference.

 

[Zigner]

According to the news reports, it was a CHP officer that testified to the percentages:

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/selma_enterprise/news/shepherd-to-stand-trail-in-caro-lujan-crash/article_c6b32f56-955f-11e1-8800-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[FlyingRon]

Ah, so even without the drug involvement, he was driving Unlawfully (no license) and dangerously (excessive speed). It meets the definition of manslaughter. You kill someone (even incidentally) while committing a misdemeanor, you're guilty of manslaughter.

 

[sandyclaus]

Ah, so even without the drug involvement, he was driving Unlawfully (no license) and dangerously (excessive speed). It meets the definition of manslaughter. You kill someone (even incidentally) while committing a misdemeanor, you're guilty of manslaughter.

Exactly. Doesn't sound like he's so innocent after all.

 

[CdwJava]

As I have said in previous posts, and I will repeat here - if the driver had NOT been going twice the speed limit, they wouldn't have been at the intersection at the time and place where the accident happened. If the other drivers blew the stop sign, either it would have been a different car they may have collided with, or there wouldn't have been a collision at all.

In MY opinion, this makes a huge bit of difference.

It wouldn't make much if the other driver blew the stop sign. If the other driver had been required to stop, then the PCF would almost always go with that person as his obligation to come to a complete stop AND to wait until it is safe to proceed generally supersedes that of a speeder with the right of way.

 

[CdwJava]

Ah, so even without the drug involvement, he was driving Unlawfully (no license) and dangerously (excessive speed). It meets the definition of manslaughter. You kill someone (even incidentally) while committing a misdemeanor, you're guilty of manslaughter.

Those are not the only elements that must be proven in CA.

Just for the misdemeanor per PC 192(c)(2) the state must show:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of vehicular manslaughter
with ordinary negligence, the People must prove that:

1. While (driving a vehicle/operating a vessel), the defendant
committed (a misdemeanor[,]/ [or] an infraction/ [or] a
lawful act in an unlawful manner);

2. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) was dangerous to human life under the circumstances
of its commission;

3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or]
infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful act) with ordinary
negligence.

AND

4. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) caused the death of another person.​

For the felony, the negligence would have to be GROSS negligence - a higher burden.

Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness,
inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross
negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of
death or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that
way would create such a risk.​

It is element number 4 - the causing of death - that will be tough.

[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and
probable consequence of the act and the death would not have
happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is
one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if
nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is
natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established
by the evidence.]

[There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death
only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial
factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not
need to be the only factor that causes the death.]​

Proving death by speed at such high speeds is no easy task. The defense can likely present an argument for reasonable doubt by presenting evidence of fatal collisions at 55 MPH under similar circumstances (broadside with no seatbelts).

A big issue will be whether the victim vehicle stopped and yielded as required by law. If the victim was not required to yield, then the issue of speed being the cause of the collision and the death becomes stronger.

I have been the primary investigator in a few of these cases, and they always hinge on arguments regarding speed and whether it was sufficient to have caused death.

 

[FlyingRon]

CDW is right...Unlawful covers any violation of the law (either a misdemeanor or an infraction). The speeding alone is sufficient. The misdemeanor caps it. In fact the misdemeanor opens up to the misdemeanor-manslaughter treatment of 192(b).

 

[nykizzle]

According to the news reports, it was a CHP officer that testified to the percentages

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/selma_enterprise/news/shepherd-to-stand-trail-in-caro-lujan-crash/article_c6b32f56-955f-11e1-8800-001a4bcf887a.html

you are right it wasn't an Expert ... i do know that... at least that's what they said in the court room

 

[nykizzle]

Ah, so even without the drug involvement, he was driving Unlawfully (no license) and dangerously (excessive speed). It meets the definition of manslaughter. You kill someone (even incidentally) while committing a misdemeanor, you're guilty of manslaughter.

but he wasn't going that fast... it takes money to prove that though...

 

[CdwJava]

you are right it wasn't an Expert ... i do know that... at least that's what they said in the court room

The CHP officer may well BE an expert. Last time I checked ALL CHP officers received the basic traffic collision investigation training which qualifies them to cite for violations that they determine as a result of their investigation. We do not know this officer's specific qualifications as they are not indicated in the news articles. Heck, he might be part of the MAIT team for all we know.

As I said, the percentages are a problem as there is no way to objectively come up with such a division of fault. And based upon another news article from April there may be a possibility that the speed results included in the MAIT report may clash with the estimate of 90 MPH (and maybe the other vehicle's 25 MPH) given in the initial report.

This still does not appear to be an easy case for the state to make.

 

[CdwJava]

but he wasn't going that fast... it takes money to prove that though...

Not really. The state has to prove that the speed killed. Further, I would think they will have to prove that the speed the defendant was traveling made the difference between life and death ... it's not going to be easy to prove survivability at 55 MPH in a broadside collision with two passengers NOT in seatbelts. The defense really only has to focus on that part: Ask the expert if he or she can say with any degree of certainty that the victims would have lived if the impact had been at 55 MPH. My guess is that the answer will be "no."

 

[nykizzle]

Those are not the only elements that must be proven in CA.

Just for the misdemeanor per PC 192(c)(2) the state must show:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of vehicular manslaughter
with ordinary negligence, the People must prove that:

1. While (driving a vehicle/operating a vessel), the defendant
committed (a misdemeanor[,]/ [or] an infraction/ [or] a
lawful act in an unlawful manner);

2. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) was dangerous to human life under the circumstances
of its commission;

3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or]
infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful act) with ordinary
negligence.

AND

4. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) caused the death of another person.​

For the felony, the negligence would have to be GROSS negligence - a higher burden.

Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness,
inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross
negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of
death or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that
way would create such a risk.​

It is element number 4 - the causing of death - that will be tough.

[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and
probable consequence of the act and the death would not have
happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is
one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if
nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is
natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established
by the evidence.]

[There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death
only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial
factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not
need to be the only factor that causes the death.]​

Proving death by speed at such high speeds is no easy task. The defense can likely present an argument for reasonable doubt by presenting evidence of fatal collisions at 55 MPH under similar circumstances (broadside with no seatbelts).

A big issue will be whether the victim vehicle stopped and yielded as required by law. If the victim was not required to yield, then the issue of speed being the cause of the collision and the death becomes stronger.

I have been the primary investigator in a few of these cases, and they always hinge on arguments regarding speed and whether it was sufficient to have caused death.

Okay I found the "other thread" sorry bout that. so i posted a little on the other thread... Basically it boils down to his speed. And he WAS NOT going that fast.. Im telling you he just wasn't .... that is insanely fast. He does not drive like that. One of the girls in the front seat was just quietly looking out of her window she remembers everything . she remembers looking at his speed saying 65 she remembers the other car going about the same speed not stopping.... my cousin didn't have a stop sign. the other driver did. and no they did not even stop at all. His speed needs to be proven damn..

 

[nykizzle]

Not really. The state has to prove that the speed killed. Further, I would think they will have to prove that the speed the defendant was traveling made the difference between life and death ... it's not going to be easy to prove survivability at 55 MPH in a broadside collision with two passengers NOT in seatbelts. The defense really only has to focus on that part: Ask the expert if he or she can say with any degree of certainty that the victims would have lived if the impact had been at 55 MPH. My guess is that the answer will be "no."

Thank you for not being so quick to judge... when you look things up on the internet about it ALL of the news articles from when the accident first happen and the testimonies of everyone are gone. I have them on my blog.. but they are all gone off of the kingsburg, hanford, and selma papers. The officers statements where he now contradicts himself now. its crazy. but thank you again.

 

[asiny]

Thank you for not being so quick to judge... when you look things up on the internet about it ALL of the news articles from when the accident first happen and the testimonies of everyone are gone. I have them on my blog.. but they are all gone off of the kingsburg, hanford, and selma papers. The officers statements where he now contradicts himself now. its crazy. but thank you again.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of vehicular manslaughter
with ordinary negligence, the People must prove that:

1. While (driving a vehicle/operating a vessel), the defendant
committed (a misdemeanor[,]/ [or] an infraction/ [or] a
lawful act in an unlawful manner);

Driving without a license.

2. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) was dangerous to human life under the circumstances
of its commission;

Driving without a license.

3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or]
infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful act) with ordinary
negligence.

Driving without a license.

4. The (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction/ [or] otherwise lawful
act) caused the death of another person.

Had he NOT been driving without a license he would have been able to cause the death of another person.

Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness,
inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross
negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of
death or great bodily injury;

Driving without a license and speeding- by the OPs argument 'at most' 70.

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that
way would create such a risk.

I think any reasonable person knows that speeding could cause a risk of death or bodily injury... although many believe they can drive like a race car driver and have the skill to handle a vehicle above legal speeds.

It is element number 4 - the causing of death - that will be tough.

[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and
probable consequence of the act and the death would not have
happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is
one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if
nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is
natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established
by the evidence.]

Had he not been driving- he would not have become a consequence to their deaths.

p.s. - can a MOD merge the two thread.. the OP keeps going back-and-forth.

Basically it boils down to his speed.

Is that the only argument the DA is bringing up for his contribution to the deaths?