Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

A student at Western Connecticut State University has pleaded not guilty to a charge of evading responsibility in the hit and run death of a fellow WCSU student. Eugene Robinson, age 22, is not charged with a criminal offense directly related to the death of fellow student Dong Lin, age 19. Rather, prosecutors have charged him with failing to stop and render aid after involvement in an accident that resulted in a person's death. The case demonstrates the wide range of possible criminal liability in cases involving any sort of homicide.

The accident occurred just off the WCSU campus in Danbury, Connecticut on November 22, 2011. Lin was crossing White Street when a car traveling east hit him at about 5:30 p.m. Witnesses described the car as "dark-colored" and "boxy." Lin was prononuced dead later that day at Danbury Hospital.

Robinson, who drives a 1989 Buick Regal, contacted Danbury police two days after the accident to notify them of his involvement, according to his attorney. He turned himself in to police on the morning of Friday, January 27, 2012, reportedly after learning of a warrant for his arrest. Robinson reportedly told police that he knew he had struck a person. Police say that he told them that he did not have time to avoid hitting Lin and that he "panicked," which is why he drove away from the scene of the accident.

Witness statements and other evidence suggest that Lin might have been texting when the accident occurred. He was reportedly crossing the street about two hundred feet from the nearest crosswalk. It may not matter whether Robinson could have avoided hitting Lin, or if Lin was distracted at the time. The charge against Robinson focuses on his conduct immediately after the accident.

Prosecutors have charged Robinson with evading responsibility. The statute holds a person criminally liable for failing to stop and render necessary assistance after an accident that results in serious injury or death. It also requires the person to provide identifying information to the injured person, police, or witnesses. In Connecticut, the potential penalty includes one to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. The Connecticut statute specifically states that the person must knowingly be involved in an accident, meaning the driver must be aware that an accident occurred.

Robinson pleaded not guilty to the evading responsibility charge in court on February 15. The case is scheduled to return to court on March 7. Robinson, who is a senior at WCSU, is free on $10,000 bail.

Continue reading "Man Pleads Not Guilty to Evading Responsibility in Hit and Run Accident" »

Amy Senser, the defendant in a prosecution for vehicular homicide arising from a hit-and-run accident in Minneapolis, has made several challenges to the evidence and allegations made against her. She is charged in the August 23, 2011 death of Anousone Phanthavong, the chef at Minneapolis' Twin Cities Thai restaurant. Phanthavong was putting gas in his stalled vehicle on an exit ramp from Interstate 94 when a car struck and killed him. Senser is challenging witness' identifications that place her and her vehicle at the scene of the accident, as well as the sufficiency of certain legal elements of the prosecution's case. She claims that she prosecutors cannot prove an essential element: that she knew that day that she had hit somebody.

The Minnesota State Patrol announced, on the day after the accident, that they were looking for a 2009 Mercedes ML350 sport utility vehicle based on debris left at the scene. Senser's lawyer contacted the State Patrol and directed them to her house. They observed that her SUV had damage to the right front side, and that a substance resembling blood was visible on the hood. The Sensers refused to say who had been driving the car or cooperate further with police until police obtained a search warrant nine days later. Senser then admitted to driving the vehicle on August 23.

Prosecutors have built a circumstantial case against Senser. Eyewitnesses claimed seeing a Mercedes SUV driven by a blond woman in her 30's at the scene of the accident. Cell phone records also reportedly place Senser at the scene. Prosecutors claim circumstantial evidence indicates she had been drinking, but no sobriety tests were performed.

Senser faces two charges of criminal vehicular homicide. An essential element of this offense that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Senser knew she had hit a person with her car at the time of the accident. Senser denies that she knew this, believing she had hit a piece of construction equipment on the exit ramp. Without knowledge that she had hit someone, she did not have a legal duty to stop and render aid. Prosecutors have alleged that an eyewitness saw her return to the scene in the SUV about forty minutes after the accident, indicating that she was very aware of what had happened. Senser's lawyer has challenged the eyewitness testimony, since the eyewitness specifically mentioned a blond woman in her 30's. Senser is 45 years old and has brown hair.

Continue reading "Hit-and-Run Defendant Challenges Allegations That She Knew She Had Hit a Person" »

A jury in Chicago convicted police officer Richard Bolling of reckless homicide, aggravated DUI, and leaving the scene of an accident on January 18. He remains in custody while he waits for sentencing, which is scheduled for February. He faces a maximum of fifteen years' imprisonment, although he is also eligible for probation. Bolling admitted to drinking the night of the accident that killed 13 year-old Trenton Booker, but he has consistently denied that he was legally intoxicated. Prosecutors contended at trial that Bolling received preferential treatment from police during the investigation of the accident. This led to interesting questions regarding evidence of intoxication.

The accident occurred in the early morning of May 22, 2009. According to Bolling's own account of events, he had been drinking at a bar with friends. He says he only had three drinks, including a beer the bartender gave him as he was leaving. Bolling says he was driving his Dodge Charger at about 40 to 45 miles per hour when he saw a bicycle coming towards him. He says he swerved to avoid hitting the bicycle, which is when he hit Booker, who was also on a bicycle. He heard the car hit something and says he felt "stunned," but did not immediately realize he had hit a person. He drove away from the scene, but was pulled over several blocks away going the wrong way on a one-way street.

Bolling claimed in court that he was planning on returning to the scene before he was pulled over. He says that he agreed to do a field sobriety test and successfully completed the test four times. The officers who pulled him over testified at his trial that they determined at the time that he was not intoxicated, but they described that determination at trial as "erroneous." One of the officers also claimed that her watch commander told her not to do the tests until two hours after the incident. She said she felt "nervous" at the scene because several high-ranking police officers were present.

Police gave Bolling a Breathalyzer test more than four hours after the accident. His blood alcohol content at that time was .079 percent, just below the legal limit of intoxication of .08. At the trial, a forensic toxicologist with the State Police testified that, had a Breathalyzer test been performed just after the accident, he would have tested above the legal limit.

Continue reading "Police Officer Convicted in DUI, Hit and Run Case" »

A mistrial was declared in the DUI murder trial of Gustavo Vega. Vega is being prosecuted in the death of Cara Lee. It is alleged Vega was under the influence of alcohol, with a blood alcohol level of over .17 percent, when he ran a red light in February 2010 and struck a vehicle in which Lee was a passenger. Because of a previous drunk driving conviction, Vega is being charged with murder. It is alleged that due to his prior conviction, he knew driving under the influence was dangerous.

In addition to the murder charge, Vega is also charged with hit and run resulting in death as well as misdemeanor hit and run. Vega fled the scene after the accident but was found nearby.

The defense contends, on the morning of the alleged incident, Vega was being chased by another driver because of an earlier fender-bender. As a result of the other driver's aggressive attitude, Vega was afraid to stop. The subpoenaed witnesses who refused to show up to court, thereby causing the mistrial, were the driver and the passenger of the vehicle chasing Vega.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard King scheduled a hearing to determine whether or not a warrant should be issued for the absent witnesses.

In a sequel to this article, one of the absent witnesses appeared in front of Superior Court Judge Richard King on Friday afternoon. The witness stated his failure to appear was a misunderstanding. Judge King informed the witness the mistrial cost the people of California nearly $30,000 and, to insure the witness's further appearance, the judge ordered the witness held in lieu of $15000 bail. The witness remained in custody until bail was posted the following day. The witness was ordered to reappear in court on the following Monday.

As can be seen from this incident, failure to respond to a subpoena is not taken lightly by the Court. It is a citizen's duty to take seriously a subpoena, especially in a case such as this.

A jury in Santa Ana returned a verdict of guilty in the manslaughter trial of Jeffrey Kirby. Mr. Kirby was on trial for the death of Tagout owner Charles Lewis, Jr. Mr. Lewis was killed when he allegedly became involved in a street race between his Ferrari and Mr. Kirby's Porsche. The prosecution argued Mr. Kirby lost control of his vehicle and this caused Mr. Lewis's vehicle to hit a pole. Mr. Lewis was killed instantly and his girlfriend was severely injured when she was ejected from the car. The race involved speeds over 100 m.p.h.

Mr. Kirby was convicted of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence while intoxicated as well as causing injury to another victim. He faces a maximum prison sentence of 13 years. Mr. Kirby also had a prior conviction for DUI. Mr. Kirby was acquitted of fleeing the scene of an accident, which could have added an additional 5 years to his sentence.

Defense counsel for Mr. Kirby has maintained Mr. Kirby was extremely remorseful for the incident. It was the Defense's contention during the trial that Mr. Kirby spun out but did not believe he collided with the Ferrari. The People contended, even though Mr. Lewis was racing, Mr. Kirby's negligence actually caused the crash.

A Newport Beach police officer saw the accident while he was transporting a prisoner to the Orange County Jail. Mr. Kirby stopped at the crash for a few seconds before he drove a short distance to where he was ultimately arrested. He had a blood alcohol level of .13 and also had marijuana in his system two hours later.

A Wednesday night hit-and-run collision, which resulted in a bicyclist being critically injured, has resulted in an arrest.

*CVC Sections 20001 and 20000 states: "The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person, other than himself or herself, or in the death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 and 20004."

*CVC Section 20003 states: "The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall also give his or her name, current residence address, the names and current residence addresses of any occupants of the driver's vehicle injured in the accident, the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and the name and current residence address of the owner to the person struck or the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with, and shall give the information to any traffic or police officer at the scene of the accident. The driver also shall render to any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including transporting, or making arrangements for transporting, any injured person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary or if that transportation is requested by any injured person."

Many people think an individual charged with a hit-and-run, resulting in property damage or personal injury, first committed a crime or some traffic violation and then fled. Although this happens, the fact is the crime of hit-and-run occurs after the accident. A person may not be guilty of any law violation...it is possible to be equally at fault or not at fault at all in the accident and still be charged with a hit-and-run if he/she leaves the scene and does not follow the law regarding reporting.

Calling a contrary California Supreme Court ruling in a prior case "wrong", the 9TH Circuit Court held in 2009 that warrantless entry into a home for the purpose of executing a misdemeanor DUI arrest is not justified under the Emergency/Exigent Circumstances exceptions.

According to the Court, whose interpretation of the 4th Amendment in this case fell in line with that of the United States Supreme Court, there must be an objectively reasonable belief that an immediate need to protect an occupant from serious harm exists...and, in this case, the officer's claim he entered the home to make sure the driver was not injured in the accident was "absurd" considering the law enforcement report noted there was no damage to the vehicle. The Court further rejected the officer's alternate argument he entered the home without a warrant because he "believed" the man may be suffering from a diabetic coma.

In its decision, the Court explicitly stated that a minor hit-and-run accident without injury does not sanction a warrantless entry into a home. Additionally, the Court noted, as required under the principles of the Federal Constitution, an officer must have independent probable cause to lawfully affect an arrest authorized by a private citizen pursuant to California Penal Code Section 837.