 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kulpinski10/17/2000
ime of OUIL causing death is not in fact a strict liability crime, but rather a general intent crime, where the element of gross negligence is presumed once the prosecution proves that a defendant voluntarily decided to drive knowing he had consumed an intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance and, therefore, knowing he could be intoxicated.
Defendant's argument, in essence, is that when our Supreme Court in Lardie ruled the crime of OUIL causing death is not a strict liability crime, but a general intent crime to which the element of gross negligence is imputed, it undermined this Court's reasoning in Price, supra, to the extent that the holding of Price is no longer valid. Defendant argues that pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Lardie, the elements of involuntary manslaughter with a motor vehicle and OUIL causing death are now virtually identical: both crimes require that the defendant operated his motor vehicle in a grossly negligent way and that gross negligence caused an accident resulting in death. Consequently, defendant maintains " t is now apparent that the social harm that both OUIL causing death and involuntary manslaughter with a motor vehicle are intended to prevent is the same: grossly negligent driving that leads to the death of another." Therefore, according to defendant, this Court should reject Price and hold that convictions and punishments for involuntary manslaughter with a motor vehicle and OUIL causing death, when they arise from the same automobile accident and cause a single death, violate the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions. We disagree.
First, we note the Supreme Court's decision in Lardie neither expressly nor implicitly addressed the issue of double jeopardy. Instead, the constitutionality of the OUIL causing death statute was at issue. To the limited and narrow extent the Price Court, in a different context, concluded that OUIL causing death is a strict liability crime, it is no longer viable in light of Lardie. In all other respects, however, and specifically in terms of its double jeopardy analysis, we believe the Price holding remains intact because the characterization of OUIL causing death as a strict liability crime was not essential in determining the outcome of the double jeopardy claim. The double jeopardy analysis in Price, supra, focused on several indicia of legislative intent, not merely on its description of OUIL causing death as a strict liability crime, and the Supreme Court's decision in Lardie does not adversely impact the other bases for this Court's conclusion in Price. In fact, upon closer scrutiny, we find the Lardie Court's characterization of OUIL causing death as a general intent crime is not inconsistent with the holding in Price that the Legislature's intent was to permit the imposition of separate convictions and punishments for both OUIL causing death and involuntary manslaughter.
The Lardie Court concluded that in enacting the OUIL causing death statute, the Legislature intended to eliminate gross negligence as a question of fact for the jury. Lardie, supra, 452 Mich at 249. Although the Court imputed a presumption of gross negligence to the crime, it did so only to avoid the absurd result of imposing penalties in those rare situations where a driver was forced to drive while intoxicated or honestly did not know he had drunk alcohol before driving. Id. at 251-253. The Lardie Court specifically explained that the requisite elements of the crime of OUIL causing death "are similar to those for involuntary manslaughter except that the people would not have to prove gross negligence." Id. at 259 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the Lardie Court concluded the OUIL causing dea
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|