 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. THOMAS7/19/1996
rts that this error was prejudicial because the jury may have found the state's evidence of a per se violation to be unreliable and may have found her guilty based only on a conclusion that she had been drinking before she drove.
The state responds that the Glanzman instruction requested by Thomas was not applicable in this case. The state also asserts that the instructions provided by the district court adequately expressed the rationale in Glanzman. Specifically the state argues the focus on the causal link between Thomas's unlawful act of driving under the influence and Kearby's death satisfies the requirements of Glanzman. The state submits that instructions 6, 7, 8, and 9, when taken together, adequately express the law on vehicular manslaughter and DUI. Finally the state alleges that any error committed by the district court in omitting the Glanzman instruction was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence that Thomas was in violation of I.C. § 18-8004.
The vehicular manslaughter charge, as brought against Thomas, required the state to prove that her operation of a motor vehicle caused Kearby's death because she was driving in an unlawful manner, specifically, under the influence of alcohol. I.C. § 18-4006(3)(b). "In other words, he was guilty of vehicular manslaughter only if being under the influence [of alcohol] . . . was the cause of the collision." State v. Gardner,
126 Idaho 428, 435, 885 P.2d 1144, 1151 (Ct.App. 1994).
The jury instructions in this case clearly required the jury to find this causal relationship between the alleged DUI and the accident. The jury was required to find that Thomas was guilty of a violation of I.C. § 18-8004, and the violation of that statute, i.e. driving while under the influence, caused the accident. Only if her ability to drive was impaired, could driving while under the influence of alcohol have caused an accident. By requiring such a finding, the district court's instructions to the jury adequately covered the Glanzman requirement that Thomas's consumption of alcohol affected her driving.
Although a Glanzman instruction should have been included, the error will not be reversible if the instructions given adequately informed the jury of the law and were not misleading. State v. McFarland, 88 Idaho 527, 534, 401 P.2d 824, 828 (1965). We examine the instructions as a whole, not in isolated parts. State v. Bowman, 124 Idaho 936, 942, 866 P.2d 193, 199 (Ct.App. 1993); State v. McBride, 123 Idaho 263, 266, 846 P.2d 914, 917 (Ct.App. 1992). Although a more specific instruction would have been preferable, the instructions as given do, as a whole, fairly and accurately reflect the elements of vehicular manslaughter, including the violation of I.C. § 18-8004.
III.
CONCLUSION
The instructions properly reflected the elements of the crime of vehicular manslaughter. Thomas's judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.
WALTERS, C.J., and LANSING, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Idaho DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|