Location: North Carolina, U.S.A. Some background information, back on Memorial Day of 2024 a “drunk” (I’ll explain later) driver ran a steady red light at an intersection (going straight, middle of the day, clear weather, straight flat road so you can see the light from a pretty good distance) and hit a car that some family friends were in. He t-boned them on the drivers side and killed the driver (father, 28M) and passenger (mother, 29F) and their child (8M). Their child “survived” at the scene but was declared brain dead the next day and taken off life support.
The driver (of the other car) survived and is currently in jail. He has been arraigned and his attorney offered a plea deal which the judge did not accept so it will likely go to trial some time next year maybe. At the hospital, his BAC was 0.02 (legal limit in NC is 0.08) and had small amounts of THC in his blood. His wife said in an interview with the police that he had smoked some marijuana and had a drink or two before getting in the car.
He is being charged with (among a few other things) three counts of second degree murder and three counts of felony death by vehicle (he was going 82mph in a 45mph zone). He had a string of driving related tickets going back to 2015, including DUI, speeding, failure to maintain lane control, underaged drinking and driving, causing an accident where his passenger sued because he permanently injured him (he apparently was speeding and driving recklessly and hit two cars), and a hit and run and theft charge (hit a car and tried taking the other person’s wallet from the car) that was dropped because the other person didn’t show up to court. Majority of the charges were dismissed, dropped, or reduced.
His attorney just provided two things from two different expert witnesses who argue that he was not impaired at the time of the accident, using his BAC and the fact he was awake and alert and oriented and could follow commands after the accident as evidence of this.
Does proving or arguing that he was not impaired at the time of the accident mean that it will be harder to prove second degree murder? I feel like it would make it easier, since you could say he was aware of his actions, but it wouldn’t make sense why his attorney would try arguing it because wouldn’t his attorney want the second degree murder charges reduced? His attorney offered three counts of manslaughter as the plea deal the judge rejected. Would being not impaired make it harder to charge as murder and easier to charge as manslaughter?
TL;DR: Driver with BAC of 0.02 killed three people in an accident that he caused and his attorney is trying to argue he was not impaired. Does that hurt or help the second degree murder charge?
Comments
You’re viewing these things in their logical language sense. In a legal sense, the “death by vehicle” law requires the persont to be under the influence. If they can show that the driver wasn’t impaired (somehow) then the driver might only be charged with manslaughter, with lesser penalties. Which is probably why they added the second degree murder charge, as a safety net. If he was imparied, death by vehicle. If he wasn’t impaired, second degree murder. If things are looking really bad for him, why not both.