 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Commonwealth1/13/1998
MEMORANDUM OPINION *fn*
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
Charles H. Smith, Jr., Judge
Ernie Williams, who had been declared an habitual offender, was driving his pickup truck in Washington County when he veered off the road, causing the accidental death of Jeremy Harless, a passenger in the truck. Williams was charged with driving after having been adJudged an habitual offender (second offense) and second degree felony murder. At trial, the Judge granted Williams' motion to strike the evidence on the second degree felony murder charge, and a jury convicted Williams of driving after having been declared an habitual offender.
On appeal, Williams contends the trial Judge erred by admitting evidence that he was reaching for a beer when the accident occurred and that he had consumed four beers on the day of the accident. We hold that the trial Judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting evidence that when the accident occurred Williams was reaching for a beer. Further, assuming, without deciding, that the Judge erred by admitting evidence that Williams had consumed four beers earlier during the day of the accident, we hold that on the facts of this case any such error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction for driving after having been declared an habitual offender.
Williams was driving his pickup truck down a narrow, country road with Gerald and Jeremy Harless as passengers. Gerald rode in the cabin next to Williams, and Jeremy sat in a chair in the truck's open bed. As Williams reached for an open beer, the truck veered off the road and struck a column of concrete steps protruding from the ground near the roadside. The collision threw Jeremy from the truck, and he later died of the severe injuries that he suffered in the fall. The investigating officer testified that he could not detect that Williams' physical condition was impaired.
Williams contends the trial Judge erred by admitting the evidence that he drank four beers earlier during the day and that he was reaching for a beer when the accident occurred. He argues that such evidence was irrelevant to prove the charged offenses of whether he was driving after having been declared an habitual offender and of whether Jeremy Harless was killed as a result of his driving after having been declared an habitual offender.
The evidence that Williams was reaching for a beer when the accident occurred was admissible as part of the res gestae of the offenses for which he was tried. "Facts which constitute the res gestae must be such, as are so connected with the very transaction or fact under investigation as to constitute a part of it." Jones v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 75, 83, 396 S.E.2d 844, 848 (1990). Limited reference to such evidence is admissible where it is "so inseparably connected with [the offense] as to make the avoidance of all reference to it practically impossible." Compton v. Commonwealth, 190 Va. 48, 55, 55 S.E.2d 446, 450 (1949). Here, the fact that Williams was reaching for a beer moments before the accident explained how the accident occurred; that fact was "inseparably connected" to the accident. Because the evidence was an integral part in explaining the accident, Williams was not entitled to sanitize the facts underlying the incident. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Williams reached for a beer while driving the truck. See McWilliams v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 933, 941, 15 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1941) ("Whether or not a [fact] is a part of the res gestae rests within the sound judicial discretion and judgment of the trial court.").
As to Williams' contention that the trial cou
Page 1 2 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|