 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Egle v. People2/7/1966
The plaintiff in error, who will hereinafter be designated as defendant or Egle, brings writ of error from a conviction for causing the death of one John Bell by driving in a careless manner while operating an automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor as prohibited by C.R.S. '53, 40-2-10.
The statute under which Egle was charged reads in pertinent part as follows:
"Any person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . ., who causes the death of another by operating or driving an automobile . . . in a reckless, negligent
or careless manner, or with a wanton or reckless disregard of human life or safety, shall be deemed guilty of a felony . . ."
In lieu of a transcript of the evidence, the parties have filed an agreed statement of the case in which they agree that the evidence was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to sustain the conviction. Errors complained of deal only with the propriety of certain instructions given by the court and the refusal of the court to give others tendered by the defendant.
Egle was originally charged with feloniously causing a death by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in a reckless, negligent and careless manner, and with a reckless and wanton disregard of human life and safety. The information was subsequently amended by deleting the words, "and with a reckless and wanton disregard of human life and safety."
Egle, who testified in his own behalf, contended that the accident was unavoidable, the decedent having come out from between parked cars. He denied negligence on his part and denied being under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident. He was found guilty and sentenced by the court to a period of not less than two and no more than six years in the State Penitentiary.
Egle specifically assigns the following as error: (1) the jury was erroneously instructed upon the definition of "under the influence of intoxicating liquor"; (2) the court erred in instructing the jury that criminal negligence consisted of ordinary or simple negligence; (3) the court erred in failing and refusing to instruct the jury upon the subject of involuntary manslaughter as a necessary included offense; (4) the information charged reckless, negligent and careless driving and therefore the court was required to give an instruction on reckless driving as well as careless driving.
Defendant assigns as error the giving of Instruction
No. 8 which purports to define the meaning of the phrase, "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" as used in the statute under which Egle was charged. The instruction as given read as follows:
"You are instructed that a person is 'under the influence of intoxicating liquor' when he has taken a drink of alcoholic liquor, which affects him so that in the slightest degree he is less able, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise a clear judgment and with steady hands and nerve operate an automobile with safety to himself and to the public, and when this mental and physical condition exists after inbibing intoxicating liquor, even though the person has had only one drink thereof, he is 'under the influence of intoxicating liquor.'" (Emphasis supplied.)
Although the instruction approved in Snyder v. Denver, 123 Colo. 222, 227 P.2d 341 is not a model of clarity, it did, nevertheless, serve as a guideline to the jury in determining whether the defendant was in
Page 1 2 3 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|