Hours after pitching his best game yet in the major leagues, Los Angeles Angels rookie Nick Adenhart was killed by a suspected drunk driver, leaving his teammates and fans stunned he won’t be around to fulfill the promise he had shown. The car they were riding in was broadsided in an intersection by a minivan that apparently ran a red light, police said.
Andrew Thomas Gallo, 22, of Riverside, was driving on a suspended license because of a previous drunk driving conviction. Preliminary results indicated Gallo’s blood-alcohol level was “substantially over the legal limit” of .08 percent, police Lt. Kevin Hamilton said.
Gallo was booked into jail on three counts of murder, three counts of vehicular manslaughter, felony hit-and-run and driving under the influence of alcohol. No bail was set.
Because of Gallo's prior history of drunk driving, the DA will pursue murder convictions based on the the legal theory of "depraved indifference" to human life.
DUI that causes death may, in special cases, be charged as murder. In the most extreme cases, it may even be charged as murder in the first degree. First-degree murder requires a showing of malice, usually found when the defendant acts in utter recklessness or wantonness.
Malice for the purpose of DUI murder are acts by the defendant that represents conscious disregard for human life, that the defendant knew his conduct was dangerous to others and had blatant disregard for any damage he/she caused. The defendant’s treatment history for alcoholism can be brought before the court as evidence that the defendant knew his/her conduct was dangerous and sought treatment before driving drunk again, when the death occurred.
Historically, the courts have required the DUI driver to have specific knowledge of the dangerous nature of the act of Driving Under the Influence. This has typically occurred wherein the driver has a prior DUI conviction, and there is proof of the driver‘s attendance at the alcohol education programs that is a mandatory requirement of a DUI sentence. There is a new law that that eliminates this requirement that there be proof that the driver previously attended an alcohol education program-a bill introduced by former DDA Todd Spitzer for political purposes.
In most DUI murder convictions, malice is inferred from the defendant’s handling a weapon that may cause death. In the case of a drunk driver, it is said that the mere driving of a car on the road demonstrates the defendant handled a dangerous weapon. I personally disagree with this concept that these situations are Murder, despite the dangers that DUI‘s pose. Persons who drive while under the influence bear no ill will and intend no harm to other people. By trying to drive, they are simply making a mistake in judgment. This occurs after their judgment has been clouded by the very substance of which they are under the influence. They are often suffering from the effects of alcoholism, which we know today is often the result of genetics and/or factors in their environment. They need help. They don‘t need to be put in prison for the rest of their lives. Extending Murder to cover these situations is an absurd emotional and political maneuver.
No comments:
Post a Comment