 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hamblin8/28/1990
titution speaks of "offense." Generally, criminal "offenses" are defined in relationship to a victim . . . he law generally does not make the act itself criminal unless harm or potential harm results to another. Thus, conceptually, the law itself focuses on the results rather than the act. We see no reason why this focus should shift when defining the term "offense."
132 Ariz. at 69, 643 P.2d at 1039.
Nor do we see any reason why that focus should differ between a crime of commission and one of omission. The law may, because of a special relationship, impose upon an individual a duty of conduct. The willful breach of that duty constitutes a criminal offense. While the charges to which defendant pled are labeled "leaving the scene of an accident", a crime of commission, the gravamen of the statutory offense is failure to remain at the scene, a crime of omission. Thus, a driver who becomes involved in multiple accidents has a duty created by law to remain at the scene of the accidents and to render aid to those injured and to otherwise comply with the provisions of A.R.S. § 28-663. Defendant's duty was to remain at the scene. His single act of leaving caused him to omit the performance of that duty as it relates to each accident.
We conclude that defendant breached that duty as to the accident that killed Mr. Hofer. We conclude that he likewise breached that duty as to the accident that injured Mrs. Hofer. Each breach of duty could properly be charged as a separate criminal offense.
Conclusion
Because we view the situation as two accidents and not just one, defendant's argument, that he left the scene of an accident
but once, is unpersuasive. The convictions and sentences imposed are affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|