Nestande Sentencing (train, expense, charge)

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Looks like other lawyers are hopping on the bandwagon started by Nestande's attorney. That ignorance of events, including running over someone, is grounds for dismissal:

"But in trial this week, Colunga’s attorneys will argue that he was too intoxicated to know he had been in a wreck, so he could not have intentionally left the scene."

Lawyers argue man was too drunk to know he struck Kylie Doniak | www.statesman.com

Unfortunately it's a good argument, they're call "blackouts". However, it's a diversion from the fact people get that drunk in the first place. But then again, it's legal isn't it? Whoops, just don't get caught.

Hey, all this drinking is good for the post office...

U.S. Postal Service could start shipping alcohol under Senate proposal | Reuters

And don't bother with the "people will not drive if they can have it delivered" argument...many drunks think they drive "better" after a fifth or so. Get sloshed at home and it's "time to take a road trip".

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Looks like other lawyers are hopping on the bandwagon started by Nestande's attorney. That ignorance of events, including running over someone, is grounds for dismissal:

"But in trial this week, Colunga’s attorneys will argue that he was too intoxicated to know he had been in a wreck, so he could not have intentionally left the scene."

Lawyers argue man was too drunk to know he struck Kylie Doniak | www.statesman.com

It isn't the same argument. Nestande never admitted being drunk. The city was unable to prove it either. If Nestande had admitted to being intoxicated, she took the risk of being convicted of intoxication manslaughter, which carries much stiffer sentencing.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

It isn't the same argument. Nestande never admitted being drunk. The city was unable to prove it either. If Nestande had admitted to being intoxicated, she took the risk of being convicted of intoxication manslaughter, which carries much stiffer sentencing.

Rather her excuse was looking down at her phone and not seeing what she hit. Another version of innocence by ignorance, a variation of the same tactic.

[bigtexan99]

Where is she performing her community service time?

[owlman]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

It isn't the same argument. Nestande never admitted being drunk. The city was unable to prove it either. If Nestande had admitted to being intoxicated, she took the risk of being convicted of intoxication manslaughter, which carries much stiffer sentencing.

He already pleaded guilty to intoxication manslaughter. For the hit-and-run charge, he's using pretty much the same defense claim as Nestande, that he didn't know he hit someone thus can't be found guilty of failure to stop and render aid. (Personally I think this is a poor interpretation by the courts, because the law for failure to stop and render aid doesn't say anything about knowledge on the part of the driver)

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by owlman

He already pleaded guilty to intoxication manslaughter. For the hit-and-run charge, he's using pretty much the same defense claim as Nestande, that he didn't know he hit someone thus can't be found guilty of failure to stop and render aid. (Personally I think this is a poor interpretation by the courts, because the law for failure to stop and render aid doesn't say anything about knowledge on the part of the driver)

Yes, but laws are intended to punish people for what they actually knowingly (or accidentally) did. A hit and run is tough, because if you toughen the law to catch people like this guy and Nastande in the net, then you also will have over-enforecement and prosecution of people who truly, actually did not even know they hit something/somebody.

Like some old lady with dementia. If she backs into a person pushing a shopping cart parking lot, doesn't see anything at all in her mirrors, doesn't even fully comprehend that that just happened, then drives off as if nothing happened, that's not a "hit and run" because she's not "running".

The "and run" in hit and run assumes a wrongdoer trying to get away instead of staying and helping. You can't assume they "knew" anything, you have to prove it. You can't even say "should have known", because it's subjective what a "thump" sounds like in a given car, how it should be interpreted, etc.

I understand the frustration of not having the tools to hold people accountable for bad outcomes they caused while drinking and driving, but the answer is not to beef up laws so that innocent people are now deemed guilty of something when there was no provable intent.

Steve

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Looks like other lawyers are hopping on the bandwagon started by Nestande's attorney. That ignorance of events, including running over someone, is grounds for dismissal:

"But in trial this week, Colunga’s attorneys will argue that he was too intoxicated to know he had been in a wreck, so he could not have intentionally left the scene."

Lawyers argue man was too drunk to know he struck Kylie Doniak | www.statesman.com

It is a good argument. If he was too impaired to realize there was an accident, the scene, then there was no intention to leave the scene. I do think that is a lesser crime then someone who knows they injured another person and intentionally leaves the scene without trying to render aid or assistance.

[hoffdano]

It didn't work for Nicholas Colunga. He was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, intoxication assault, and failure to stop and render aid. He was sentenced to 14 years.

[CptnRn]

Good! Apparently the intoxication laws do not require proof of intent to cause harm. Which is probably why he was not charged with murder in the first degree.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Good! Apparently the intoxication laws do not require proof of intent to cause harm. Which is probably why he was not charged with murder in the first degree.

He wasn't charged with murder of any kind because no one died.....