Vehicular homicide laws are so inconsistent, some drivers are set free while others are jailed.
By GRAHAM BRINK
Published February 5, 2004
TAMPA - A 17-year-old boy slides his souped-up sports car through a stop sign in his Countryway neighborhood killing a woman pushing a stroller.
A judge sets him free.
An 18-year-old woman who was not drunk volunteers to drive some friends home from Ybor City. Speeding on Interstate 4, the woman flips her Camaro, leaving one passenger dead and one severely injured.
She receives 16 years in prison.
The divergent results showcase the legal uncertainties that can disquiet traffic homicide prosecutions. In some cases, what constitutes a simple traffic accident and what rises to the level of criminal recklessness remains ambiguous. The outcome can mean the difference between a traffic ticket and a prison sentence.
A fatal crash Tuesday on Bayshore Boulevard could become the latest controversial case. Motorcyclist William Napier was driving at about 80 mph in a 40 mph zone when he hit and killed a jogger, according to preliminary police reports.
The investigation continues. Prosecutors have not filed any charges.
"These cases often sound like slam dunks," said defense attorney Joe Episcopo, a former prosecutor who has handled several high-profile traffic cases. "But once you pull back the layers and apply the law, things can get really cloudy."
Under the law, vehicular homicide is the killing of a person while operating a motor vehicle in a reckless manner. And "reckless" is defined as driving with a "willful or wanton" disregard for the safety of others.
The trouble arises in applying the definition of reckless to real life examples. Case law deems drag racing over a busy bridge or doubling the speed limit through a school zone as reckless. But killing someone after running a stop sign at 10 mph over the speed limit or cutting a corner too close are much less clear.
As for Napier's case, former prosecutor Paul Duval Johnson said motorcycle crashes can be particularly difficult to investigate. The crush damage and skid marks are not as consistent as with other vehicles, which often leaves the testimony of lay witnesses to establish how fast the bike was going. Studies show that lay witnesses often exaggerate the speeds of other vehicles, Johnson said.
"It could be hard to determine all the factors that led to the crash," Johnson said. "And those factors are what the prosecutors need to know to bring a case."
Over the years, the general rule was that speed alone was not enough to support a conviction of vehicular homicide. Though, some recent cases suggest that excessive speed could be enough to support the charge.
Prosecutors usually look for other factors, such as a driver weaving in and out of traffic, passing dangerously or roaring through an area the driver knows is regularly crowded with pedestrians.
The prosecutor in Richard Delrio's case, involving the woman and the stroller, told jurors the teenager not only failed to stop at the stop sign, but also turned on the wrong side of the road to take the curve sharply, as was his habit at that intersection.
Experts estimated that Delrio was traveling 17 to 26 mph in a 25-mph zone when his car struck the woman. The jury convicted Delrio of vehicular homicide. But two weeks later, in a controversial move, the judge tossed out the verdict and set Delrio free.
"(It's) an accident," Judge J. Rogers Padgett said after his decision. "There's nothing particularly egregious about that except for the fact that somebody got killed."
The appeals court agreed.
Prosecutors have cited the Delrio case as they investigate whether to bring vehicular homicide charges against 17-year-old Gable Yerrid. He was in an accident on a Saturday morning in mid-August that killed 33-year-old Christi White, who tried to make an illegal left turn onto Bayshore. Five seconds before impact, Yerrid's SUV was recorded doing 78 mph.
Though that speed was nearly double the limit, prosecutors have warned White's brother not to expect charges, saying speed itself is not necessarily enough to prove reckless driving.
Yerrid's father, prominent attorney Steve Yerrid, reached a confidential settlement with White's husband and 7-year-old daughter before they filed a wrongful death lawsuit.
Defense attorney Harvey Hyman described vehicular homicide laws and the way they are interpreted as "very fickle." As an assistant public defender, Hyman defended Jennifer Martin, the driver of the Camaro that flipped on I-4.
At the trial, an expert said Martin was driving at least 82 mph in a 55 mph zone. When she tried to pass a vehicle, she slammed into the back bumper, which spun the Camaro out of control. The car hit the interstate's inside retaining wall, rolled and hugged the wall for about 100 yards. Then, it flipped over the wall.
The two victims were not wearing seat belts. There was no evidence that Martin was impaired by drugs or alcohol.
The jury convicted Martin on multiple counts. The sentencing guideline called for about 16 years in prison. "That case will always strike me as a bizarre result," Hyman said.
Johnson was the prosecutor in the Martin case. He described it as "the most tragic and painful case I've ever been involved in."
Johnson said the issue of whether Martin acted recklessly was a "very close call." He thought Martin deserved to be convicted, but said the sentence, imposed by state guidelines, was way out of whack. "That one broke my heart," Johnson said. "The case was an example of how those laws are screwed up."
In 1999, the Legislature upped vehicular homicide from a third-degree felony to a second-degree felony, which increased the maximum sentence from five years to 15 years.
"We have to be careful that this doesn't get out of hand," Johnson said. "I mean, who hasn't driven too fast or screeched their tires around a corner or made a questionable lane change? If someone steps out in front of you, you are facing at least 11 years in prison for making a driving mistake."
- Times staff writer Richard Bockman contributed to this report.
