 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Ingram8/18/2004
nstrated by the fact that appellant lost control of his truck on the turn. In addition, the jury was presented with photographs and a video of the stretch of road where the accident occurred, and could determine if appellant was driving at a dangerous rate of speed. Furthermore, the jury was informed that Bethel was driving 30 to 40 miles per hour on the road, indicating that this was a safer speed.
*10 Appellant argues defendants in other drunk driving murder cases exhibited much more dangerous driving maneuvers, indicating that the evidence in this case was insufficient to support the verdict. Appellant's attempt to distinguish his behavior from other cases is unpersuasive. We note that each case must be decided on its own facts, and the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish the crime.
Furthermore, the facts here are similar to other cases where a second degree murder conviction has been upheld. In People v. Ricardi (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 249, 254, the defendant, after drinking more than 10 beers, drove his truck to another city. On his way, the defendant drifted from his lane, crossed a center divider, hit a road sign, and collided head-on with another car traveling the opposite direction. In noting the evidence was sufficient to sustain a second degree murder conviction, the court explained the defendant was speeding prior to the accident and found the jury could infer that the defendant knew he would drive after being intoxicated and could infer malice from the fact that the defendant had a number of prior convictions and attended alcohol treatment programs. (Id. at p. 260, fn. 5.) In People v. McCarnes (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 525, the court found sufficient evidence of malice in a drunk driving murder case where the defendant drove at a speed of over 65 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone and passed another vehicle by crossing over a double yellow line on a two-lane highway and striking an oncoming vehicle. (Id. at p. 528.) The court described the defendant's driving as "extremely reckless." (Id. at p. 533.)
Likewise here, appellant was traveling at an excessive speed and passed another vehicle by crossing into the lane designated for oncoming traffic while on a steep downhill portion of the road and approaching a turn. Appellant lost control of his truck and drove off of the road and back onto the road, ultimately overcorrecting and flipping his truck. Such a maneuver can certainly be considered "highly dangerous."
Additionally, the evidence established appellant was driving poorly prior to the accident. Appellant struck a trashcan in an alley after leaving the bar. Lopez told Sellers that appellant had been driving like an "idiot" prior to the crash. Lopez also told Sellers that appellant was driving his truck off the road and through bushes on their way to the Bone Yard. Taylor told Sellers that appellant had been "driving like crap" prior to the crash, and that he drove up onto an embankment and almost rolled the truck.
Appellant again tries to compare his actions with the driving patterns found in other cases of drunk driving murder to argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We find the argument unavailing. We note that in People v. Ricardi, supra, there was no evidence of reckless driving prior to the fatal crash, yet the court concluded sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction. Here, appellant did engage in reckless driving, as is evidenced by the fact that he struck a stationary object, drove off of the road and was described as driving "like an idiot."
*11 The evidence in this case was more than sufficient to support a finding that appellant knew the risks of driving while intoxicated, consciously disregarded those risks and engaged in reckless driving tha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|