 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffries v. State5/14/2004
.
FN25. Id.
However, the Puzewicz decision has little precedential value on the issue raised by Jeffries in this case. Puzewicz only pursued a sentence appeal, so this Court did not reach the question of whether the above-described evidence was legally sufficient to support Puzewicz's murder convictions.
Nevertheless, decisions from other states that have murder statutes based on the Model Penal Code suggest that the facts of Puzewicz are sufficient to support a conviction for "extreme indifference" murder.
Kentucky has an "extreme indifference" murder statute similar to Alaska's. [FN26] In Estep v. Commonwealth, 957 S.W.2d 191 (Ky.1997), the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that an intoxicated motorist who crossed the center line and collided with an oncoming vehicle could be convicted of murder under this statute based primarily on evidence of her extreme intoxication:
FN26. See Kentucky Stats. § 507.020(1)(b) (Baldwin 2003).
[Kentucky Statute] 507.020(1)(b) permits a conviction for wanton murder for the operation of a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.... [C]onduct such as Estep's has been held to constitute wanton murder under such a statutory standard. Walden v. Commonwealth, Ky., 805 S.W.2d 102 (1991), held that a wanton murder conviction was proper because the conduct of the defendant amounted to more than a typical automobile accident by virtue of the extreme rate of speed and level of intoxication.... [T]his Court concluded that ... the extreme nature of the intoxication was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer wantonness so extreme as to manifest extreme indifference to human life. Id.
The evidence in this case demonstrated that Estep was driving her truck at a high rate of speed in an improper manner under the influence of drugs. Blood tests revealed the existence of five different types of drugs in Estep's body: Xanax, Elavil, Soma, Valium and Hydrocodone.
...
Eyewitnesses testified that Estep was seen passing at a rate of speed greater than 50 miles per hour in a no-passing zone near a curve in the road. The testimony indicated that after she completed passing one automobile, she failed to return to the proper lane and collided with a car on the wrong side of the road. One of the passengers in the other vehicle testified that ... Estep was slumped over in her seat and that she raised her head only seconds before the fatal crash. There was evidence that[,] when Estep was taken to the hospital for observation following the accident[,] she kept passing out and appeared "pretty zonked." [This] was sufficient evidence that Estep was operating a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life and she wantonly engaged in conduct *192 which created a grave risk of death and caused the death of another person.
Estep, 957 S.W.2d at 192-93.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reached a similar conclusion in Allen v. State, 611 So.2d 1188 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). Quoting the Kentucky court's decision in Walden with approval, the Alabama court agreed that "[d]epending on the situation, drunk driving may be ... a circumstance that a jury could find to 'manifest[ ] extreme indifference to human life.' " [FN27] The Alabama court then upheld a murder conviction for an intoxicated driver whose careless driving was manifested primarily by an inability to keep his vehicle within the proper lane of travel:
FN27. Allen, 611 So.2d at 1192.
[T]he "situation" that will support a conviction for reckless murder must involve something more than simply driving after having consumed alcohol and becoming involved in a collision. As noted above, [Alabama's reckless murder statute] contemplates conduct that is the culp
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|