Distracted Driving Accidents May Result in Vehicular Manslaughter Charges in California

In California, driving under the influence is a crime. Using a handheld cell phone, or texting while driving, on the other hand, is a mere traffic violation under Penal Code 23123, also known as California’s “distracted driving” law. But there is little difference between a DUI and distracted driving if you injure someone as a result. And if you kill someone while using a handheld phone, you could face charges under Penal Code 192(c) PC Vehicular Manslaughter, which makes it a crime for a driver to kill another person by driving in an unlawful way, or in a lawful way that is, nevertheless, dangerous.

District attorneys in California have the discretion to prosecute vehicular manslaughter as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If convicted of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, you may face up to one year in a county jail. If convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter, you may face two to ten years in state prison.

It happened to a Costa Mesa man in 2008, when a jury found him guilty of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence after he killed a pedestrian while sending a text message as he was driving. And last month, a Bakersfield woman was arrested and charged with felony vehicular manslaughter for killing three people after she first ran a stop sign, and then a red light, while talking on her cell phone.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, texting while driving can delay a driver’s reactions as much as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08, the current legal limit. The OTS and the California Highway Patrol report that more than 57,000 California drivers were ticketed for handheld cell phone talking or texting during April’s Distracted Driving Awareness Month.

A recent case suggests that courts are getting tougher on people who use handheld wireless devices while they drive, even if it’s just to look at a map of where they’re going. In December, a California appellate court ruled that holding a phone to check a GPS or other mapping application constitutes a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23123(a), which prohibits driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone. The court said that the distraction a driver faces when using his or her hands to operate a phone is present whether it is being used as a telephone, a GPS navigator, a clock or a device for sending and receiving text messages and emails.

The message that courts and prosecutors are sending is clear: if you look at your handheld phone while you drive, you might find yourself in need of a good lawyer.

Continue Reading...

Roslindale Man Is Charged With Leaving The Scene Of An Accident And Vehicular Homicide In Boston – Attorney Sam’s Take

A Roslindale man has allegedly learned a criminal justice lesson on the topic of hit-and-run accidents. Namely, you can hit. You can run. But you cannot hide.

Colin Ratiu, 23 (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) is the=is unfortunate driver according to the Commonwealth . He was arraigned in court yesterday after pleading “not guilty” to charges of leaving the scene of an accident after causing death, and motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation.

The accident happened in November. The Defendant was using someone else’s car and is said to have explained the damage on the vehicle by saying that when he had swerved to avoid a skunk, he ended up hitting...”something”.

In fact, what the car actually struck was a 24-year-old Northeastern University graduate driving home in a scooter. The scooter was thrown about 150 feet. The graduate was killed.

“He then proceeded to drive away without stopping,’’ the prosecutor told the judge yesterday.

Homicide detectives began the investigation immediately, but it was not until 89 days after the accident that an anonymous tip led them to the car that had allegedly been driven by the Defendant that fateful night. The damage on the vehicle was consistent with what they were looking for. Upon questioning, the vehicle’s owner told the detectives about the Defendant and his skunk story.

When the police went to question the Defendant, he is reported to have said, “I have a lawyer, and I don’t want to talk about it.’’

In court, the defense did not address the allegations, but pointed out that members of the Defendant’s family were in court (showing strong community ties) and that the Defendant had had no prior criminal record and had not left the state and answered to police when he knew they were looking for him.

Bail was set at $7,500 cash.

Over my years as an experienced Boston criminal defense attorney, I have been contacted by various frightened people who seem to be exploring the idea of sitting back and ignoring the fact that the police or prosecutors are investigating them. My advice to them is generally the same as what I tell you. Get an experienced defense attorney involved as soon as possible. When you do, you can at least tell the police that you are only too happy to speak to them, but they have to get the green light from your attorney first.

This way, if no statement is given, it is the defense attorney who is the bad guy, not you.

Please note the difference between “go through my attorney, but I have nothing to hide” and “I have a lawyer, so get lost.”

Anyway, many of these calls from either people with outstanding arrest warrants or who have been involved in some kind of accident…and then kept going.

Often, these individuals figure that if the police have not already come banging down their door, then they are probably home free and so do not need any help.

This is generally a mistake.

First of all, as you can see from this story, the investigation does not stop simply because the driver is not yet caught.

Second, in most cases, particularly if there is damage on the vehicle, the more you wait the worse it will be. Every case is different, of course. However, if you contact the police, at least you can take some of the sting out of the leaving the scene. Perhaps you did not know you hit something until you got out of your car and saw the damage.

“But, Sam, what if you do not know if it was a car bumper or a living person you hit?”

It really does not matter in terms of leaving the scene. It is illegal whether a person was injured or killed or if it was simply property damage that was the result.

“What if you can tell that, at worse, it was a little scratch you may have left behind?”

It does not matter. The law indicates that any damage, “however slight” counts. You see, once you leave the scene, the damage is not really the issue anymore. It is the fact that you left the scene.

And, yes….the Commonwealth takes these cases quite seriously, even if the damage was slight.

So, if only to minimize damage to your liberty, it is best to get an experienced criminal defense attorney involved as soon as possible.

If you would like it discuss such a matter with me, please feel free to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/15/suspect_is__held_in__fatal_nov__hit_run/?p1=Local_Links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Massachusetts Drunk Driver Admits Guilt But Is Not Responsible For Vehicular Accident- Attorney Sam’s Take

It would appear that this Massachusetts driver thought ahead. Realizing that the coming storm would make it difficult to go out and drink, Ms. Tara Tobin (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) got in one last trip just before the snow. The result was not too pretty.

The Yarmouth police say that the Defendant admitted that she had drunk six or seven beers in Dennis before driving.

What happened? The crash took place Tuesday night around 9 p.m..

The unusual part? According to the police, the Defendant, whatever condition she was in, did not cause the accident.

Apparently, a 47-year-old emotionally disturbed man jumped into the path of a Dodge Dakota pickup truck. The truck's driver swerved to avoid the man and was then rear-ended by the Defendant’s car..

The man suffered serious, but non-life-threatening, injuries and was taken to Cape Cod Hospital, police said.

The Defendant is to be arraigned in Barnstable District Court…whenever it reopens following the storm...for drunk driving.

Let’s all hope she presents a bit better than she did in her “mug shot” which was published at the below link in the original article.

My experience, since 1984, handling drunk driving cases in Massachusetts goes back to my last year at Boston University School of Law as a student prosecutor. The cases, particularly when a breathalyzer is involved come down to issues of perception and prejudice.

I do not mean racial prejudice, but bias based upon indoctrination. Most often, if a police officer pulls you over because he or she feels you are intoxicated, or begins to suspect you are under the influence, you will most likely be charged with

This influence, by the way, can be alcohol, illegal drugs or even legal prescription drugs…to say nothing of any mixture of the three.

In my experience, once suspected of being under the influence, you should assume that the police report will say that you have glassy eyes and slurred speech. Most likely there will also be some kind of odor of alcohol listed.

That said, consider yourself under arrest. Any other descriptive is gravy for the Commonwealth. This is why it is usually a mistake to submit to any tests. Granted, if you pass the breathalyzer, for example, it will help you down the road. However, it will probably not prevent your being arrested. If you do not pass it, it will surely hurt you down the road.

Given the amount of vehicular homicides last year due to drunk driving allegations, victims sometimes being police officers, you are not likely to receive a “break” from the officer.

So don’t ask for one. Said request will simply be treated like an admission of guilt by the prosecution.

And, yes, there will be a prosecution.

The advice in these cases is to not quarrel with the officer, or try to outwit or outrun the officer.

Simply remain polite, do not make statements (except name, license, etc.), and get an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

If you would like to discuss such a matter with me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/by_john_r_ellem_29.html

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Mattapan Man Seeks Driving License After Six OUI and One Vehicular Homicide Convictions- Attorney Sam’s Take

We take today’s blog from the “You’ve Gotta Be Kidding Me” section of the news. It involves a man who clearly picked the wrong time to attempt to get back his Massachusetts driver’s license.

One would imagine that even without the pending Parole debacle claiming the front page every day , that Algary Horton, 53, of Mattapan (hereinafter, the “Nondriver”) would still be refused.

You see, the Nondriver does not have the greatest driving record. He has been convicted six times for drunk driving for example. Oh yes, and there was that time, in 1993, when he killed a woman on one of those allegedly drunken drivers and then fled the scene.

The Nondriver does get points for consistency, however. He was convicted of OUI in 1979, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1998 and 2004, authorities said.

In the 1993 case, interestingly not his last, the Nondriver was also found guilty of vehicular homicide when his vehicle veered off Park Street in Dorchester, plowing into a 38-year-old woman. She, a mother of three, was sent flying into the air while her children and friends looked on in horror. The Nondriver drove on.

In that case, he was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison. Somehow, however, he was back behind the wheel and driving (although without a valid license) for the occasions of his 1998, 2003 and 2004 arrests, authorities said.

Meanwhile, not to be deterred, the Nondriver continues to appeal and fight for his privilege to drive to be returned to him.

Don’t think he hasn’t been busy while carless, mind you. Apparently, he also has three pending assault cases in Dorchester District Court, court officials confirmed

He’s probably no longer a threat.

As a Boston-based drunk driving defense attorney of many years, I have seen some very odd results of cases…and their aftermaths.

The pending plight of the Nondriver and his nonlicense is not as shocking to me as it probably is to you. For anyone in this man’s position to try to get his license back, particularly when the recent Parole Board fiasco is still playing out is to be living in another universe. Had he given the situation some more thought, perhaps he would realize that if, at this time, he was given his license back, whoever made such a decision would likely be drawn and quartered.

However, there is an interesting question here. How many of these convictions were plea bargains and how many were trials?

“Sam, why on Earth should that matter?”

Sometimes there is a snowball effect. Sometimes, when one is facing trial and potential jail time, one pleads guilty in order to avoid the risk. Believe it or not, innocent people do this as well as guilty people.

Why might they do this? Well, for many, jail is a pretty scary possibility. Further, they might find themselves with an attorney in whom they have little faith. Perhaps the attorney is exuding the vibes of “Omigod, we’re gonna lose! We’re gonna lose!”

And so, in panic, they plead guilty.

Pleading guilty sometimes makes sense under such circumstances. Sometimes, however, it does not. Particularly in certain cases, where one’s future in job potential, immigration consequences or ability to drive may be in jeopardy.

Then, at the next case, the prior conviction-by-way-of-plea is considered and the odds for either acquittal or more consideration become worse.

How best to avoid such a catastrophe? Retain and experienced criminal defense attorney who has handled matters like yours. Also, make sure it is someone in whom you have faith. That way, you know whether you can believe what he or she is telling you.

Before the moment of panic.

If you want to contact me to discuss such a case, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20110115man_in_fatal_oui_loses_bid_to_regain_license/ and http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20110114despite_6_ouis_including_one_fatal_man_wants_license_back/

View the original article here

Continue Reading...