 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Commonwealth6/16/2005
the red light, i.e., that the light would change in his favor before he entered the intersection. Appellant admitted and it is undisputed that the light was still red when he entered the intersection and that he never applied his brakes. Jennifer Kaeferle, who was waiting with her husband at the red light on the opposite side of the intersection, testified that her husband observed Appellant's vehicle and Conklin's vehicle approaching the intersection at the same time and remarked that a collision was about to occur. Kaylor, who was preparing to turn right somewhere behind Appellant's vehicle, also testified that he saw the vehicles approaching each other and knew that a collision was imminent. There was no evidence adduced at trial indicating that either Appellant or his passengers ever saw the Conklin vehicle. The inference that Appellant did not see the impending collision was reinforced by the fact that his vehicle left no skid marks on the road prior to the point of impact.
Although Kaylor saw the accident occur, he immediately left the scene, drove home, changed vehicles, and then drove back to the scene of the accident. Kaylor testified that he never spoke to any officer at the scene. Based on the events of the night, Kaylor was charged with one count of wanton endangerment, and he entered an Alford plea on the morning of Appellant's trial. The Commonwealth called Kaylor to testify during its case-in-chief and, during redirect examination, the prosecutor elicited testimony about the plea. On recross examination, Appellant's counsel asked Kaylor what he had done wrong. Kaylor responded, "As far as I was concerned, I didn't do anything wrong, but it got started somehow that I was racing, when I in fact wasn't."
"A person is guilty of murder when:. .. (b) Including, but not limited to, the operation of a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of another person." KRS 507.020 (emphasis added). KRS 501.020(3) defines "wantonly," as follows:
A person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unLustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, to be convicted of wanton murder under KRS 507.020(1)(b), Appellant must have had a more egregious mental state than mere wantonness.
As explained in the Commentary accompanying the Penal Code. .. the culpable mental state defined in KRS 501.020 as wantonness. .. without more, will suffice for a conviction of manslaughter in the second degree but not for murder because, to qualify as murder, a capital offense, it must be accompanied by further circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
McGinnis v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Ky. 1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Elliott v. Commonwealth, 976 S.W.2d 416, 422 (Ky. 1998). It is the element of "extreme indifference to human life" that elevates wanton homicide to the same level of culpability as intentional homicide.
"There is a kind of [wanton] homicide that cannot fairly be distinguished. .. from homicides committed [intentionally]. [Wantonness]. .. presupposes an awareness of the creation of substantial homicidal risk, a risk too great to be
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|