 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffries v. State5/14/2004
a place where the roadway was marked with a "no passing" double yellow line. As the defendant crested the hill on the wrong side of the road, he struck an oncoming vehicle and killed three of its occupants. [FN37] Similarly, in Shiflet v. State, 216 Tenn. 365, 392 S.W.2d 676 (1965), the court upheld the murder conviction of an intoxicated driver who veered into the oncoming lane of traffic and struck another vehicle. [FN38] In State v. Goodman, 149 N.C.App. 57, 560 S.E.2d 196 (2002) [FN39], the court upheld the murder conviction of an intoxicated driver who struck another vehicle when he ran a red light (apparently after passing out, with his "head and arm hanging out of the driver's side window"). [FN40] A major factor in the court's decision was the fact that the defendant had numerous prior convictions for driving while intoxicated and other traffic offenses. [FN41] And in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 461 Pa. 557, 337 A.2d 545 (1975), the court upheld the murder conviction of an intoxicated driver who passed another car at a high rate of speed and struck two boys who were bicycling along the other side of the road. [FN42] The court stated:
FN37. Geter, 132 S.E.2d at 31, 35.
FN38. Shiflet, 392 S.W.2d at 678.
FN39. Reversed on other grounds, State v. Goodman, 357 N.C. 43, 577 S.E.2d 619 (2003).
FN40. Goodman, 560 S.E.2d at 198.
FN41. Id. at 199-200.
FN42. Taylor, 337 A.2d at 546.
The intoxicated condition of the driver, the excessive rate of speed [at] which he was traveling, the distance the bodies and bicycles were propelled upon impact, his awareness that this was an area where children were likely to traverse, the absence of any physical or climatic condition which could explain or contribute to the happening of the accident and the appellant's failure to stop immediately after impact, all exhibit the wickedness of disposition, the hardness of heart, cruelty and recklessness associated with murder in the second degree.
Taylor, 337 A.2d at 548.
Based on these authorities, we hold that in cases of homicide caused by an intoxicated driver, the element of "extreme indifference to the value of human life" required for conviction of second-degree murder under AS 11.41.110(a)(2) can be established not only through evidence that the defendant engaged in egregiously dangerous driving, but also through evidence of the defendant's extreme intoxication, the defendant's decision to ignore warnings not to drive, the defendant's past convictions for driving while intoxicated, the defendant's refusal to participate in court-ordered treatment for alcohol abuse imposed as part of the defendant's sentence or conditions of probation from previous DWI convictions, and the defendant's decision to drive despite a license suspension or revocation stemming from previous DWI convictions.
The presence of some or all of these factors does not necessarily prove that the defendant acted with extreme indifference to the value of human life. However, the jury is entitled to consider these factors when deciding whether the government has proved that the defendant acted with the extreme *194 degree of recklessness that will support a murder conviction under AS 11.41.110(a)(2).
Jeffries's argument that the trial judge allowed the State to present irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial evidence
Jeffries also argues that the trial judge committed error by allowing the State to introduce evidence of Jeffries's prior DWI convictions, evidence of Jeffries's failures to participate in court-ordered alcohol treatment programs, and evidence of the fact that Jeffries's conditions of probation from his prior DWI convictions prohibited him from consuming alcoholic beverages. Jeffries argues that this evidence was either ir
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.
|
|