Assume two cars crash and the occupant of car 1 dies. The occupant of car 2 was responsible for the wreck by running a red light or some other traffic violation and was drunk at the time. Assuming there was no witnesses at the scene of the accident if the person in car 2 runs and is caught 3 days later can they still be charged with anything blaming them for the wreck or being under the influence of alcohol at the time since there is no real proof? Would the only crime that would stick be leaving the scene of an accident?
Well, IANAL, but I imagine that if 27 witnesses at Joe’s bar watched driver 2 consume 15 tequilas minutes before leaving, that could be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Further, I think driver 2 may be charged with driving under the influence in such circumstances, although driving while impaired would be harder. However, if driver 2 was witnessed behaving in an impaired manner, after having 15 tequilas, perhaps it would be an easier case to make.
I don’t know what any of the observers or bartender could be charged with for letting driver two leave under such circumstances, tho…
In most cases, no. The only thing they can be charged with in leaving the scene or failing to render aid or some similar charge. It should be noted that in some cases, the penalties for hit-and-run are fairly severe, though usually not as severe as homicide by druk driving. Some districts are changing the penalty for leaving the scene of a fatal accident to be equivalent to causing it by drunk driving, which obviously removes the incentive to flee.
There was a case around here about 2 years ago where a guy hit a jogger and killed her. He was known to be coming from somewhere where he had been drinking that night and had a history of alcohol related incidents (I should point out that the police didn’t know who hit her until a few days later). The police didn’t find him for a couple of days, and by then he was sober of course. He could only be charged with hit and run. He did get 7.5 years, but could’ve gotten 60 if he’d been proven intoxicated.
Are there circumstances other than DUI where a driver can be charged with manslaughter? I seem to remember hearing of such cases in Illinois 20 years ago or so.
To the OP, analysis of the accident scene may provide sufficient evidence for reckless (though not wreckless) driving, etc.
Is there a witness who saw the driver after he left the scene that could (or should) testify to his intoxicated state?
Wow, I didn’t know you could be charged with wreckless driving. The next time I drive, I’ll be sure to have at least one wreck. I’m surprised that I haven’t been sent to traffic school to see the horrible pictures that show hours of no traffic accidents what-so-ever. I can’t imagine anything more mind numbing.
Oops, I just read it as wreckless driving for some reason. Anyway, this is the way the funny response would have looked had I been right. A veritable laugh riot, eh?
Don’t local police have people who specialize in accident reconstruction? How persuasive does their evidence have to be?
BobT is right: you would start with physical evidence, including accident reconstruction. I know someone who used to do this for the LAPD; many accident reconstructionists also work for insurance companies. Examine both vehicles. Based on paint chips, scratches, the location of either, the height/weight of the vehicles, etc., as well as skidmarks on the pavement, an accident reconstructionist may be able to determine each car’s position and speed at the time of the wreck.
If there were no witnesses to the wreck, it may be more difficult to show that Driver 2 (who fled the scene) ran a red light or was in the midst of some traffic violation other than drunk driving. Driver 1 (who died) could have run the red.
But fleeing the scene of an accident, even if you didn’t cause the accident, is a crime. (See Cal. Veh. Code sec. 20001.) If the accident results in death, you are looking at 2-5 years additional time.
So assume that accident reconstruction determines that Driver 2 was involved, but did not necessarily cause, the accident that kills Driver 1. Driver 2 is caught. Can they also determine whether Driver 2 was drunk at the time of the accident?
Possibly. To do so, you could not show that Driver 2 was drunk through direct evidence (i.e., the result of a breath test/blood test/urinalysis). (See Cal. Veh. Code sec. 23610.) Instead, you could do so through circumstantial evidence. In California, the law explicitly provides for such evidence to be admitted:
So the police would conduct interviews, and the prosecution could present testimony that Driver 2 was at Ye Olde Towne Pub between 8 and 11 at night, that during that time he bought no fewer than six beers, 4 shots, a martini and a cosmo. That he left the bar at 11, and that the accident occurred sometime before midnight ten blocks from the bar on the route you would presume Driver 2 would take home. That Driver 2’s landlady doesn’t rememeber when Driver 2 got home, but when she went out to get the newspaper the next morning at 6, his car was parked in its usual spot.
The prosecution would then present evidence that, based on Driver 2’s weight and alcohol consumption, his likely blood alcohol level when he left the bar was some amount above the legal limit; and that every hour it decreased by a certain amount; that it would take him between 8 and 20 minutes to get to the scene of the accident from the bar; that by the time of the accident (before midnight), his blood alcohol level was still above the legal limit; and that he drove himself home along that road.
That would be enough, I think, for a judge or jury to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Driver 2 was intoxicated. Then it’s the defense’s turn to try to establish reasonable doubt – i.e., yes he bought all those drinks, but he was picking up chicks and buying drinks for them – he himself had no more than 2 beers in three hours. Etc., etc.
So, to answer the OP: yes, it is theoretically possible to prove that someone, caught days later, was drunk at the time of the accident. But it can be very, very difficult.
I know it’s just a TV show, but Law & Order had an episode where this occurred once. The episode had a guy who drank a lot on an airplane who had run over someone while on the way home from the airport. If I remember correctly, his girlfriend and the stewardess testified he was drunk, and he was convicted of vehicular homicide. Whether this would happen in real life, I don’t know. Most bars would probably claim you weren’t drunk when you left their premises, since they could be found liable in civil court for your actions.
Actually, he was about to be convicted of first-degree murder, with the argument that he actually sped up to hit and kill his second and third victims. McCoy wink-wink-encouraged the airline to transfer that particular stewardess to foreign flights only so she wouldn’t be available to tesify about how much booze the driver had consumed, thus helping McCoy make his murder case and helping shield the airline from possible liability claims.
At the last minute, McCoy lost his nerve and introduced evidence that the guy was drunk. The defendant was convicted of three counts of vehicular homicide and given three consecutive five-year terms, instead of the death penalty. It’s actually one of the weaker episodes of L&O, what with the bitter judge and all.