In addition, numerous witnesses established that between 4 p.m. The State also contended there was no evidence supporting a conclusion that the parked vehicles protruded over the fog line.Įxpert evidence offered by the defendant, based upon mathematical computation, placed his vehicle's speed at a maximum of 56.7 m.p.h. Expert testimony, based upon the extent of damage to the vehicles, placed defendant's speed immediately prior to the accident at anywhere from 65 to 80 m.p.h. State evidence placed defendant's blood alcohol level at. In essence, the factual dispute is: what was the proximate cause of the accident that resulted in Mrs. She, however, had parked 17 feet east of the Raber vehicle facing west, with her headlights illuminating the Raber vehicle and facing oncoming traffic.ĭisputed in this case is (1) the speed of defendant's automobile at the time of the accident (2) the extent to which, if at all, the parked vehicles protruded into the lane of travel (3) the angle at which the Oldsmobile's headlights confronted oncoming traffic (4) whether the Raber vehicle was displaying any lights while it sat disabled (5) the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed by the defendant and (6) the accuracy of the gas chromatography reading of defendant's blood alcohol level. Also parked on the eastbound shoulder was a 1979 Oldsmobile driven by Irene Daggy. Rhonda Raber, his wife, was standing at the left rear corner of the Datsun retrieving articles from the rear of the vehicle. Immediately prior to the accident, Eli Raber's 1974 Datsun sat disabled and parked on the eastbound side of SR 170, facing east. *228 It is undisputed that on April 22, 1985, at approximately 7:50 in the evening, while traveling eastbound on State Route (SR) 170, defendant's vehicle struck and killed Rhonda Raber. We adhere to our consistent application of the rule that a causal connection is required and, accordingly, reverse the Court of Appeals. In order to support a conviction under the vehicular homicide statute, we are asked whether there must be a causal link between a defendant's drinking and a victim's death and, if so, whether the jury instruction in this case was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction. Paul Klasen, Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.ĭefendant seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction for vehicular homicide, contending the jury instruction failed to require a causal connection between his drinking and the fatal accident. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |