The defense to the windshield case is accident. For details, see Statesman. Anyone buying it?

And it was an accident when she hid him in the garage. And it was another accident when she kept going out and apologizing.
And, oh my gosh, it was an accident when she removed the seats and evidence from the car.

Go for it, Richard.

Does it matter if the initial cause of the injury was, in fact, an accident? Or, can you convert what would otherwise be an intoxication assault or manslaughter into a murder by subsequent bad behavior? Is it reasonable for the defense to describe the subsequent behavior as omissions (by failure to seek medical care) that are not recognized in law as a crime?

It's an accident if you hit the guy, stop, and call an ambulance. It's FSRA if you hit the guy and leave him on the side of the road. It's murder if you hit the guy, drive home with him stuck in the widshield, lock him in your garage to bleed to death, cover up the crime and dump the body, and laugh about it at a party after the fact. I think the defense is digging a deep grave arguing technicalities regarding guilt. The deeper the better.

To me, if the defense could show that the victim suffered injuries almost certain, if not certain, to lead to death by reason of the defendant's negligence, then the subsequent omissions (which were at least knowing) might not be a sufficient cause of death to hold her accountable for murder. The requisite mental state must accompany the conduct identified as the cause of death. The civil law would impose a duty to render assistance and the FSRA statute makes the knowing breach of that duty a crime (but not necessarily murder). The failure to act as a cause of death is a pretty interesting concept. Does 19.02(b)(1)or another law provide that her omission was an offense or otherwise provide a duty to act as required by 6.01(c)?

I presume the facts of the Fort Worth case show that but for the omissions (though I have a hard saying driving to a certain location is an omission), the victim might well have survived. That should negate even the submission of any lesser included criminal offenses and render the initial accidental nature of her course of conduct (if it was) irrelevant.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 06-25-03 at .]

For an update, to to the Chronicle. Sounds like the defense is he was already dead (or, at least, the allegation that the State can't prove BRD that he wasn't dead on impact).

quote:

---

Di Maio and Peerwani both said that despite the injuries, Biggs could have survived if he had received medical attention.

---

Seems the defense's own witness pretty well negated that defense. My question is, how was this lady able to continue the drive home under those conditions (bleeding new body laying beside her)? And why didn't she start apologizing any earlier (if that was going to be the extent of her interaction with Biggs)?

The jury found Mallard guilty of murder.

Congratulations to Richard Alpert on a case well prosecuted.

Congratulations also to Christy Jack and Miles Brissette, who tried the case with Richard and to their investigator, Ron Sears.

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 06-26-03 at .]

Why is the San Antonio medical examiner testifying for the defense? Does he do this on a regular basis?

Yeah, he testifies regularly for the defense.

And now the Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction. See the home page of this web site for a story.

And now it is a David Mamet movie. For a review, click here.

Let's hope this one is better than the first movie.