The scenerio is this: School bus is stopped on a county road, with one SUV behind it. Bus lets the kids off, then continues down the road. Before getting up to speed, SUV passes in a no passing zone. There is a vehicle in the oncoming lane. Both the bus and the oncoming vehicle swerve into the ditch to avoid a three way collision (there's no shoulder to the road). SUV driver admits seeing the bus swerve into the ditch. Six of the children are injured, one with a closed head injury. SUV drives home.
My understanding of FSRA is that the defendant must have knowledge that an accident occurred as a result of his/her conduct. In this case, no collision occurred, but the bus was forced off the road as a result of defendant's conduct. Defendant did not have knowledge that anyone was hurt. Would this be FSRA or reckless driving?
The knowledge requirement goes to the accident, not whether someone is hurt. Seeing the bus go in the ditch gives her the knowledge the accident occurred. The reason she didn't know anyone is hurt is because she failed to stop. Otherwise, her defense to FSRA would excuse all drivers involved in pin-in collisions from being required to stop. However, I believe she is guilty of both offenses. The elements are not only different, but on a timeline, the offenses occurred one (FSRA) after the other (RD).
Do you need to plead specific information about the accident in the indictment? I don't think so, but I have a defense laywer saying so on a case about to go to trial here.
Posts: 2138 | Location: McKinney, Texas, USA | Registered: February 15, 2001
John, you don't need to plead specific information. It is implied by the elements of the offense. This is another defense attorney trying to force the State to plead facts that would tie your hands in the event of a factual, and not elemental, discrepancy. Of course, a judge could grant a Motion to Quash if the judge agreed, but the case law is clearly on the State's side.
David, from the case law I am familiar with, there was no modification of the word accident. Again using my pin-in example, you could be pinned in but not need treatment, but the other driver couldn't know that until they stopped and rendered aid. To me, an accident doesn't require injury, thus the differing levels of offense based on the levels of injury.
In any event, in K's original question, you still have a Failure to Give Information. Seeing a school bus go off the road because you passed in a no-passing zone seems to me to be clear accident you witnessed and were involved in.
David you're right - we are trying for FSRA, not FSGI.
My confusion revolves around the issue of "apparent". The cases that I read seem to say that when the defendant was aware an accident occurred as a result of her conduct, she failed to stop, and a person was in need of medical attention - this is FSRA. However, my boss brought up the issue of whether a school bus merely being forced off the road, without something more dramatic, was enough evidence of an "accident" that possible injury should have been apparent.
The driver is charged with the failure to stop under 550.021(c), and not the failure to comply with 550.023(3). You never reach the issue of whether reasonable assistance required treatment of apparently "bad" injuries. Of course there was nothing apparent to the driver because she did not stop. While she must be proved to be aware of the "accident" (which requires no physical collision with her vehicle under Rivas), her knowledge need not extend to the fact that the accident resulted in injury to or death of a person. Baker, 974 S.W.2d 750. Knowledge that an accident had occurred is the only circumstance surrounding this conduct that Goss identifies as necessary to satisfy the definition in 6.02. Don't let the pleading mistake in Williams, 600 S.W.2d 832 imply anything different.
