Virginia,Caroline,County,Vehic law Virginia Caroline County Vehicular Involuntary Manslaughter
When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a
HOANG HUY NGUYEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIACOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIAApril 2, 1996, DecidedFacts:Defendantsconvictions stemmed from an automobile collision occurred on Interstate 95 in Caroline County involving a 1992 white PlymouthLaser driven by appellant and a 1993 Ford van operated by Steven Rivers. Threechildren, who were passengers in the van, died as a result of the crash. Theaccident occurred in the southbound lanes of I-95 which contain three trafficlanes divided by broken white lines. The maximum speed limit on I-95 at thetime of the accident was sixty-five miles per hour. The evidence did notdisclose any defects in the roadway or in either vehicle involved in theaccident. Testimony was presented at trial that defendant was observed drivingin excess of the posted speed limit prior to the crash and that defendant hadconsumed alcoholic beverages prior to operating his vehicle. Defendant soughtreview of a judgment from the Circuit Court of Caroline County (Virginia),which convicted him of three counts of vehicular involuntary manslaughter inviolation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-36. Issue:Whetherthe cumulative effect of the defendants conduct constitutes "negligenceso gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard of humanlife."?Discussion:Thiscourt held that it is concluded from the undisputed evidence that appellantknew all of the traffic conditions that existed at the time. All of the trafficinvolved in the accident was in clear view and directly in front of theappellant in broad daylight. He was driving in excess of seventy miles per hourand had a drink in his possession. He willfully chose to pass all of thetraffic ahead of him. To do this he had to change lanes, itself a dangerousmaneuver. Appellant was driving in excess of seventy miles per hour, violatingthe maximum speed limit on the roadway, again a willful and deliberate act onhis part. The trial court found that appellant's conduct constituted negligence"so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard of humanlife" and convicted him on three counts of involuntary manslaughter. Wecannot say that its judgment was plainly wrong or without credible evidence tosupport it. The degree of appellant's negligence, as determined by the greatrisk of injury together with the knowledge he had or should have had of thatrisk, was sufficient to support the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.Conclusion:This court henceaffirmed judgment from the Circuit Court of Caroline County (Virginia), whichconvicted the appellant of three counts of vehicular involuntary manslaughterin violation of Va. Code Ann § 18.2-36.Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS LawGroup. They represent the firmsunofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritativecontent
Virginia,Caroline,County,Vehic