Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

A grand jury in Kentucky recently indicted a high school for reckless homocide for the death of one of his players from heat stroke. According to various reports, the coach refused to provide players with water. At first blush this appeared to be another attempt to hold someone criminally responsible for what is basically an accident. That may still be the case. However, as more facts come out, I can understand why the prosecutor decided to pursue this.

It appears the coach was forcing players to run until they could no longer do so. That is nothing out of the ordinary, and probably happens at some point everywhere - after all coaches must teach players to learn their limits, which is something you cannot do without being pushed. What is disturbing about this situation though is that before the young man, another player collapsed. When you combine that with the failure to provide water you have a situation that is out of the ordinary. In short, I can see why the prosecutor took action in this case.

I grew up in the day when we didn't about the need for hydration. It is was not something encouraged in my time. Instead of water, salt tablets were common - everyone believed they replaced the salt you were losing through sweat. We now know that is less than a great idea. We also know a lot more about what is necessary to avoid injury, especially heat stroke. This is not the first time something like this has happened, and you have to believe coaches are aware of it. Maybe the coach had a reason for what he did, but it seems to fly against conventional wisdom.

There is no doubt the school could be sued, and may well be. In the past, that has been how these type of issues were resolved. In fact, around the same time the widow of Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer settled a suit they had filed against the team. The 11th circuit also issued an opinion in a similar case filed against a school. In a 1983 suit, the court held the coaches were entitled to qualified immunity since the player voluntarily participated in the program. That would seem to effectively defeat any such suit, since almost all such programs are voluntary. I wonder whether the same facts would suuport a criminal prosecution.

Texas has the offense of criminally negligent homocide - the elements are that a person causes the death of another by criminal negligence. There is also an offense of manslaughter, which covers deaths resulting from recklessness. Criminal negilgence exists where a person "is aware of  but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's viewpoint."

So what does that long legal definition mean? Basically, the State must prove he either knew, or should have known that the player would die. Ultimately it will be up to a jury to determine that question. I can see both sides, which usually means it is they type of case that should be resolved by a jury of citizens.

Normally, I'm suspicious any time it appears someone is being charged just because something bad happened. Not every unfortunate occurence is a crime; we have a civil system designed to take care of those things that are simply reckless or negligence. Criminal prosecution should be reserved for the most serious cases; those that are the result of more than simple mistakes in judgement. Until we know all the facts, I don't know where this case comes out in that continuum. No doubt it is a tragic situation; not only for the student and his family, but also the coaches, the other players and the school. Hopefully its not made worse by dragging the coach through a criminal prosecution.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Both Simple Justice, and Truth in Justice, recently commented on the reversal of a criminally negligent homicide conviction in New York. The 17 year old defendant was on his way home when he lost control over his car while going through a turn. He had 3 friends with him, who all died. The defendant was speeding, and only had a junior license. The Court of Appeals concluded that was not enough to make the conduct criminal.

Sometimes people have a hard time accepting that some actions are not crimes. Criminal statutes are generally designed to punish intentional conduct; you know something is wrong, but you do it anyway. You don't always have to intend the result; for instance, you might get in a fight, and during the fight the other person trips, and hits his head, resulting in serious injury. You may still be guilty of an aggravated assault, if serious bodily injury resulted.

All but a few criminal offenses require a mental state. There are three - intentionally, knowingly and recklessly. Recklessness means you aware of the risk, but ignore it. In the assault example, you know something might happen. You can be reckless, and be just as guilty as if you act intentionally.

Sometimes you don't need a mental state at all.  Intoxication manslaughter is one of those offenses. If you intoxicated, and involved in an accident, you are guilty. The State doesn't have to prove the accident was the result of your drinking, they just have to prove you were legally intoxicated. Sometimes its nothing more than bad luck; both for the defendant, and the other parties.

So why should you be guilty if you don't have the necessary intent? The theory is strict liability - you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, no matter what your intent is. If you drive while intoxicated, you are responsible for whatever happens. Some may think it fair, and some may not.

Not everything has to be crime. We have a civil justice system that is designed to handle disputes. We would be better off if we let the civil justice system handle some of those disputes, and not make everything a crime. After all, we have more than enough people in jail already.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Intoxication manslaughter cases have been in the Waco news later. Several weeks ago, a young girl was sentenced to 2 years for the death of her cousin. They had both been out drinking at a party, and had a wreck on the way. During the trial, the victim's parents pleaded with the jury to not send her to prison.

Last week, a young man was given 30 years for the death of a mother, and injuries to her children He had been passing in a no passing zone when he collided with the victim. The wreck killed the mother, and seriously injured one of the children. Obviously, the wreck devastated the mother's family. It also devastated the defendant's family. His brother had been killed several years earlier after drinking too much, and driving his truck into a ditch.

This week a defendant decided to plead guilty instead of going to trial. She had been out drinking with friends, including the victim. The victim had also been using drugs. They ultimately got into a fight, and he got out of the car, and the others left. They came back, and ran over him, killing him - he was lying in the road at the time. She agreed to 8 years instead of going to trial. When interviewed, her law stated it was not a good time to be charged with McLennan County. Obviously, the verdict the previous week influenced her expectations o what could happen.

So how come one defendant gets 2 years, and another gets 30. The easy answer is that different juries may look at cases differently. Still, that doesn't really explain the difference between those two results. Even when plea bargains are involved, there often appears to be substantial disparity between similar cases.

It's no secret that the majority of cases are resolved by plea bargain. When trying to negotiate a plea, both lawyers are trying to guess what a jury would do. The defendant does not want to agree to more time than a jury would likely assess. The prosecutor also does not want to offer substantial less than what a jury would assess. When trying to guess what a jury will do, both sides have to evaluate all aspects of case. That includes the facts of the offense, and a defendant's prior history. Although it shouldn't be a consideration, the circumstances of the victim must also be considered. (that will be left to later)

Plea bargaining has a lot of similarities to gambling, and each defendant's attitude towards risk must be taken into consideration. Some people want to know what will happen, and stay away from risk. For them, plea bargaining allows them to know beforehand what is going to happen. Others enjoy risk. For them, they may not shy away from the risk of a trial, where they might get a lower sentence, or one substantially higher than is being offered.

Another factor which cannot be controlled is the prosecutor assigned to the case. Policies vary among Counties, but almost everywhere prosecutors have some discretion when making offers. In some counties, that discretion is almost unlimited, which creates a real problem for criminal defense lawyers. One prosecutor may be more lenient than another, and the luck of the drawer determines whether a client gets a low offer, or a high  offer. That is one of the more difficult things to explain to clients when they see other people coming out substantially better than they are. It is impossible not to compare cases, and everyone does it.

Just as the prosecutor makes a difference, so does the defense lawyer. Prosecutors know some lawyers have a reputation for pleading everything out, and avoiding trials. They also know other lawyers are going to fight for their clients, and aren't afraid to go to trial if they think that is he best strategy. Without a doubt, the latter are the ones who are most effective in negotiating favorable agreements.

In the end, there is no formula or rule you can use to evaluate a case. There is no substitute for experience. That is the only way you can know how juries and prosecutors evaluate cases. Unfortunately, that leaves everyone with their own opinion, which they won't hesitate to share - all you have to do is look at the comments on most news web sites. Of course, that is also one of the things that makes this Country great.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link