Now if you took an alcohol enema after the accident … (sorry couldn’t resist - it seems like a popular thing nowadays)
Seems like the thing to do would be to keep a one third full bottle of whiskey (or whatever) in your trunk. When tragedy strikes, you simply retrieve the bottle and make sure the police see you taking a nice long swig as they pull up. No way of telling how much you drank before they arrived.
Bingo.
That’s the old joke about the doctor and the lawyer who have an accident on an incredibly foggy road. There is not much injury, but both are shaking, the lawyer pulls out his flask and politely offers the doctor a drink first. After the doctor takes a swig, he puts it away. “Aren’t you having some?” asks the doctor. “Not til after the police arrive” says the lawyer.
My favourite is the “Gordon Lightfoot defence”. He was pulled over because he forgot to turn on his headlights; he was taken to the police station, where he blew over his limit. The judge (obviously a fan) accepted the argument that just because he was over the limit when he reached the station does not mean he was over in the car, since alcohol takes a while to be absorbed into the bloodstream.
Of course, the prosecutor and the newspapers went ballistic and the appeal judge (no fan, I presume) decided no special “Get Out Of Jail Free” for celebrities.
In this state the penalty for 1st degree murder is either:
- 15 to life (15 years before parole eligibility) or
- Life without parole
at the jury’s discretion.
The penalty for DUI causing a death is 2 to 10 years in prison, out in 3 years if you keep your nose clean…
The law might just say that you were tested as intoxicated when the police arrived and the burden of proof falls on you to prove you weren’t intoxicated at the time of the accident.
The other possibility is the DA just prosecutes you for a different felony charge instead of DUI manslaughter.
IANAL, but I think 2nd degree murder would be a more likely conviction that 1st. 2nd degree would probably be a better comparsion.
I understand that some states use “malice murder” for DUI causing death, but it has never happened here. That debate perhaps is for another thread… but I can’t imagine how a non-intentional homicide done while intoxicated is done with malice..
QFT.
Also, you just added hit-and-run by leaving the scene of the accident to go get more “liquid stupid” (great phrase, BTW).
In my hypothetical the booze store is right next corner. I doubt going there for a minute and coming back would count as a hit and run.
Well, you already had a guy or gal come in here and post, who sat on a jury where this exact excuse was tried, and they convicted him. So, there you go, you got your answer. It won’t work. It’s not even a novel idea.
I’d ASSUME that you were up to exactly what you were in fact up to. Not everyone is a mouth-breather.
As I mentioned in my first post a dead body buys a LOT of police attention. Expect to be charged with leaving the scene, and they might throw in littering for the various broken pieces of your car laying scattered about.
I’ll take a leaving the scene and littering charges every day of the week and twice on Sunday instead of a DUI or a DUI causing injury/death. Plus, just keep the whiskey bottle in the trunk as a prior poster suggested.
If I were on the jury in a dui/vehicular manslaughter case, the defendant’s claim that he had downed a six-pack immediately after the accident would make me more likely to convict him, not less–even if he had multiple witnesses to his having drunk those beers. The fact that his immediate reaction to [del]such an accident[/del] such a crash was to drink would make me think he had already been imbibing too much and probably did so habitually.
jtgain, I think Rick was saying you get those IN ADDITION to doing the do.
Juries tend to think the way Skald does. The urge to chug immediately after an accident and before the fuzz shows up seems odd to everybody. The first question then is, “Why’d he do that?” and the answer is a swift, “Because he’s trying to cloud the investigation & hide the fact he was already loaded.” That’s a jury for ya. You do NOT want to get sideways of the jury.
I meant in addition to DUI, vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving, and possibly a murder charge.
Pretty much the DA is going have stand there and ask you to catch the very large book he is going to throw at you.
Here is the link:
During deliberation, juror introduces argument not brought up at trial. Grounds for appeal?
I agree. If I was the defense attorney, I would definitely ask for a bench trial in that situation or a directed verdict because jurors will definitely think that. But I would hope a judge would decide, as a matter of law, that being drunk 20 minutes after an accident when witnesses and cops saw you drinking after the accident would leave the police with no way of telling if you were or what level of intoxication you were DURING the accident.
As I said, there would be other factors. Did you blow a .083 at the scene? To me, that’s evidence that you were under the limit at the time of the crash. Did you blow a .31? Then you were drunk beyond a reasonable doubt at the time of the crash.
But the evidence needs to be analyzed. I agree that you would have to be a complete dumbass to drink right after a car crash, and that could be used as evidence against you. But I wouldn’t automatically put a guy in prison for being an idiot if the evidence showed reasonable doubt that he was not drunk at the time of the crash.