Posted on 05/19/2005 5:59:00 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Drunken driving death trial begins
By Juliette Rule rep9@wyomingnews.com Published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
CHEYENNE - Decisions to drive drunk, speed and race through red lights had fatal consequences, a prosecutor told jurors Tuesday on the first day of an aggravated vehicular homicide trial here.
Ron Holland, 45, of Greeley, Colo., is accused of being the drunken driver who rammed into a mini-van on Father's Day, killing one person. Investigators calculated his speed at 55-62 mph, well over the posted limit of 45 mph. And one witness told police Holland ran two red lights before causing the fatal accident.
From a defense attorney's perspective, the crash was nothing less than tragic but it was neither a homicide nor aggravated assault.
"It's about bad things happening to good people on both sides of this case," Dan Blythe told jurors. "No one feels worse about this than my client."
The crash killed the driver, 41-year-old Janna Klussmann, and seriously hurt her husband, Andrew Klussmann, then 40. It happened just after 3 p.m. as Klussmann moved from the interstate off-ramp and onto South Greeley Highway.
Blythe told jurors his witnesses - two highly educated engineers - will contradict the police finding of Holland's speed while others will contradict the state's version of events. Eyewitness testimony isn't completely reliable, and he'll show that the light was red for Klussmann, he said.
Holland posted 10 percent of his $100,000 bond in July. He runs a sheep operation in Weld County, Colo. He has one prior DUI arrest, which was pleaded down to driving while intoxicated, the Greeley Tribune reported.
The trial proceedings continue today before Laramie County District Judge Peter Arnold.
Two people called by prosecutor Mary Beth Wolff Tuesday told of smelling alcohol on Holland, who was arrested and charged with aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated assault days after the crash.
A sample of Holland's blood was drawn an hour after that crash - it measured .21 percent blood alcohol concentration, or nearly three times the legal limit, Wolff told jurors.
Police Sgt. Rick Wood and Abel Camargo, also of Cheyenne, told jurors they smelled alcohol on Holland's breath.
That left Camargo feeling disgusted, he said. For an off-duty Wood who just happened upon the scene, the odor led him to ask Holland if he had been drinking, he said.
That question and Wood's answer Tuesday created some disagreement between his written report and his testimony. Wood wrote Holland asked if he was a cop. But on the witness stand, Wood said Holland mumbled yes, then asked if was a cop, inserting an expletive before the word "cop."
Blythe leaped on the chance to discredit Wood, insisting he had changed his story.
Wood explained that discrepancy: Police officers hear much profanity on the job and don't include every dirty word they hear in reports.
The Klussmanns had driven from their home in Fort Collins, Colo., June 20 to spend the evening with the wife's parents, who live on Lucky Court. Janna Klussmann was raised here. Five years ago she married Andrew Klussmann, a Colorado State University women's volleyball coach.
With them in the mini-van were two of the couple's small children and Andrew Klussmann's mother, Helen.
Andrew Klussmann's testimony covered his injuries. That included head wounds, a broken jaw and eye socket. He said he continues his recovery, seeing a speech therapist periodically. He moved slowly and with a slight limp to the witness stand. His speech was clear.
He said he hopes to return to work, but added that won't include coaching a traveling team.
"Janna made it possible for me (to travel)," he said. "The boys' needs are going to come first."
He said he doesn't remember much about his two-week stay at United Medical Center-West, but his mother recalled her worry and the crash for jurors.
Helen Klussmann, a retiree who lives in Aberdeen, S.D., was in the backseat. She said she didn't see the green pickup coming toward them.
"I certainly didn't know we were in an accident," she said. "I thought it was an explosion. All of a sudden I felt like I was in a blender."
During the ambulance ride, she said, she thought her son and his wife both were dead. She said she heard a terrified boy's screams, and that's how she knew her older 2-year-old grandson was in the ambulance.
But it was a man's voice that told her they weren't the only ones headed to the hospital, she recalled.
She testified that an EMT or firefighter asked that man how much he had had to drink. The man didn't answer, but the emergency worker probed further.
"You might as well tell me because we're going to test you," she recalled the EMT asking. "When did you start drinking?"
The answer came in two words: last night.
She remembered being able to smell the alcohol. She said she could tell by the way that man answered the questions that he had been drinking.
"No consequences" for the driver ping. (And if somebody's dead, how can it not be homicide?)
I hate it when they call these things accidents. This is first-degree murder. It's not about bad things happening to good people. It's about a bad person doing a bad thing to an innocent victim. They should fry this guy.
Well said.
Aw, come on...this was manslaughter, nothing else! There was no intent (premeditation) to commit murder. I agree the guy should go to the slammer, but for rehabilitation not for death. Alcoholism is a disease, it does not require an "eye-for-eye" punishment to search for a cure.
Maybe you saw something I didn't in the story. Where was it stated that someone held him down and poured alcohol down his throat and then forced him at gunpoint into his car and threatened him with bodily harm until he drove away?
This was cold-blooded, premeditated murder. He knew the likely outcome of his behavior and he chose to take the action. Because his victim happened to be random does not change the premeditation in the least. Or are you one of those people who thinks serial killers should be "rehabilitated?"
I have this conversation with my kids all the time. Someone will say, "But I wasn't TRYING to break the dishes (hit my sister in the face, drop the baby, step on the cat, dump out the cereal) as if not having deliberately chosen the *outcome* means that they didn't choose the *action* (juggling plates, swinging stick at sister, picking up baby, running through kitchen, turning cereal box upside down) that caused the outcome.
If you voluntarily do something that has a substantial likelihood of causing injury, then you have chosen to injure (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on your rational capacity).
IMO, this kind of thing is a critical difference between raising a herd of self-absorbed future liberals and a family of responsible and intelligent human beings.
Thanks for all you do on that front.
And yet if he's lucky and doesn't hurt anybody and the cops catch him, it's another slap on the wrist and he's free to go.
If the penalties for drunk driving were harsher there's no way a defense attorney could get away with the "he just had one drink too many, no big deal, he feels terrible that something bad happened" line. Weak penalties for drunk driving support the premise that the behavior itself isn't that dangerous, and if something bad happens it's "tragic for everyone".
Actually, there is biblical case-law precedent for this situation -- the law concerning a dangerous bovine. If everybody ws surprised, it's an accident. Kill the animal, compensate the family of the victim. If, however, "the animal was wont to push with his horns in the past, and the owner knew it," then the owner is executing along with the beast.
People who knowingly and deliberately endanger their neighbors are guilty of a capital crime if someone dies as a result of their flagrant carelessness.
Biblical law is wonderfully kind to potential victims.
Spot-on, Johnny.
So we could say anyone causing a fatal accident, let's say while going 15mph+ over the speed limit should be subject to homicide (or you seem to be in agreement with first-degree murder) charges?
I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact classification -- call it what you will ("causing death by engaging in behavior known to have the likelihood of causing fatality"), but punish severely.
(We had to go the hardware store :-).
But on point, you seem to be suggesting, SPR, that going 15 mph over the speed limit is no big deal. Whether speeding at that level creates a "substantial likelihood of causing injury" depends on the circumstances. Probably not, if you're on the Interstate, and everyone is going 75 instead of 60.
But if you're going 35 down my street in the afternoon, instead of 20, then you've made the choice to risk hitting a child, and if you do, the punishment should reflect the fact that you behaved with indifference toward a fatal outcome.
A person who is driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway should be presumed to have sufficient judgment to recognize dangerous circumstances and avoid them. One-size-fits-all categories such as "12 mph over the speed limit isn't reckless, but 15 mph over is reckless" shift responsibility from the driver.
Good comparison, Steve. In each case, there is no certainty that an injury or fatality will occur, but there is a reasonable probability. As I would say to my son, "Even if you weren't *trying to* hit your sister in the head, you weren't trying hard enough NOT to hit her."
You're welcome. I had the concept drilled into me as a child ... take responsibiity for the action that you took, and spare everyone the discussion about the circumstances that you think make it excusable. Maybe the outcome was harmless, but the concept is what's important: my action, my consequences, my responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.