State v. Vaught
| Decision Date | 15 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1352,77-1352 |
| Citation | 382 N.E.2d 213,56 Ohio St.2d 93 |
| Parties | , 10 O.O.3d 224 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. VAUGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The instant cause arises out of a fatal automobile accident in Columbus involving the defendant-appellant, Albert W. Vaught, and an eight-year-old boy, Scott Pennington. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 17, 1976, appellant was driving west on Mound Street in the curb lane in what was described by one witness as approximately 35 miles per hour, bumper-to-bumper traffic. As appellant approached the intersection of Mound and Whitethorne, Scott Pennington was standing at the northwest corner of the intersection waiting to cross Mound. A car heading south and waiting for the light governing Whitethorne traffic to change was near the boy.
The light governing the Mound Street traffic turned yellow just before appellant entered the intersection. It was then that the victim apparently stepped out in front of appellant's car. 1 Following the impact, two other motorists observed the victim's body when it was "in the air" and when it landed on the pavement. Both eyewitnesses and appellant stayed at the scene of the accident.
Appellant was subsequently tried in the Court of Common Pleas on the charge of aggravated vehicular homicide. The jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide, and judgment was entered upon the verdict. The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed the conviction.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to an allowance of appellant's motion for leave to appeal.
George C. Smith, Pros. Atty., and Alan C. Travis, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Donald Lynn Billman, Columbus, for appellant.
The sole issue raised by the instant cause is whether the evidence presented at appellant's trial was sufficient to sustain his conviction.
It is established law in Ohio that one cannot be convicted of a crime in the absence of evidence as to each element of that crime "which, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Atkins v. State (1926), 115 Ohio St. 542, 546, 155 N.E. 189, 190, cited in State v. Walker (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 208, 210, 378 N.E.2d 1049.
Appellant was convicted of vehicular homicide. That offense is set forth in R.C. 2903.07(A), and provides, in pertinent part:
"No person, while operating or participating in the operation of a motor vehicle * * * shall negligently cause the death of another."
The general rule is that, in order to find a person guilty of homicide arising from the negligent or unlawful operation of an automobile, "it must be shown that such negligent operation * * * was the direct and proximate cause of death * * *." Annotation, 99 A.L.R. 756, 772. This general rule also applies in Ohio. See State v. Schaeffer (1917), 96 Ohio St. 215, 117 N.E. 220, paragraph seven of the syllabus, and Jackson v. State (1920), 101 Ohio St. 152, 127 N.E. 870, paragraph one of the syllabus, interpreting forerunners of the vehicular homicide statute. Under R.C. 2903.07(A), therefore, the elements which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt are (1) operation of a motor vehicle, (2) lack of due care during the operation of that vehicle, and (3) death proximately caused by that lack of due care.
The state introduced evidence that appellant was negligently driving above the speed limit when the accident occurred. The evidence also reveals that the accident occurred at an intersection at the approximate time when both the green light giving Mound Street traffic the right of way over pedestrians and the red light for cars waiting to cross at Whitethorne changed. The victim was such a pedestrian. If the record reveals sufficient evidence that appellant's negligence caused the victim's death I. e., that appellant was speeding and that the speed caused him to strike the victim at a time when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gensler
...N.Y.S.2d 526, 528 (N.Y.App.Div.1985), appeal denied, 66 N.Y.2d 615, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 485 N.E.2d 242 (1985);9 Ohio v. Vaught, 56 Ohio St.2d 93, 382 N.E.2d 213, 214-15 (1978);10 Metcalf v. Texas, 171 Tex.Crim. 269, 347 S.W.2d 618, 619 (1961);11 see also v. State, 553 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA......
-
People v. Rostad
...(1968); Coffelt v. State, 159 Ind.App. 485, 307 N.E.2d 497 (1974); State v. McFadden, 320 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa 1982); State v. Vaught, 56 Ohio St.2d 93, 382 N.E.2d 213 (1978); State v. Dionne, 442 A.2d 876 (R.I.1982). See also 3 R. Anderson, Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure § 985 (1957). In......
-
City of Akron v. Melinda Wright
... ... occasion to address these concerns as if properly preserved ... since they are of substantial import. See State v ... Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St. 3d 18, 25, certiorari denied ... (1990), 494 U. S. ____, 108 L. Ed. 2d 774 ... It is ... 2903.07(A) require that the vehicle ... operator's negligence must "cause" the death of ... another. See State v. Vaught (1978), 56 ... Ohio St. 2d 93, 94-95; State v. Newton ... (1985), 23 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185. Wright argues that there ... was ... ...
-
State v. Langenkamp
...during the operation of that vehicle, and (3) death proximately caused by that lack of due care." State v. Vaught (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 93, 95, 10 O.O.3d 224, 225, 382 N.E.2d 213, 214; See, also, State v. Mason (June 27, 1986), Allen App. No. 1-85-11, unreported, 1986 WL 7473; State v. Rose......