How to Fight a Failure to Yield Charge

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: VA


My 19 y/o son was in a car accident where he was given a ticket for Failure to Yield - 46.2-804 (yes, that's what it states, I know it's the wrong code number). He told me what happened and I'm not sure he's at fault. We went to court to plead no contest and there was a mix up where the judge and prosecutor thought he wanted to plead not guilty (long unimportant story). So now my son has to go to trial for this ticket since the judge thought he wanted to plead not guilty. We cannot afford a lawyer and would like advice on how to go about fighting this ticket. We'll keep looking for lawyers, but would still like advice on how to fight this without a lawyer.

What happened is that my son was making a left turn at the same time a car approaching from the left was beginning to make a right turn (this car had the right-of-way). There was another car behind the turning car. This other car chose not to slow down for the car in front of them that was turning and decided to instead speed up and go around on the left, crossing the double center line into my son's lane. This car hit my son's car as my son was still turning, so my son's car was hit from the driver's side front bumper to the driver's side front tire.

My son suffers from an anxiety disorder and could not fully remember what had happened until about 24-48 hours later, after he already talked to the police and insurance people. I suspect that if he had told the police officer what had happened, that both drivers would have received a ticket.

It's debateable as to whether my son should have made that turn. But my son would not have been hit and given a ticket if the other driver hadn't crossed into my son's lane. The police gave my son a ticket because they thought my son had been hit in the other driver's lane and if that were the case, my son would be guilty and there would be no issue here. I have pictures of skidmarks and debris that prove that the other vehicle had to be in my son's lane at the point of impact. Is that enough to prove that my son is not at fault? How do we use these pictures in court?

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

It's debateable as to whether my son should have made that turn. But my son would not have been hit and given a ticket if the other driver hadn't crossed into my son's lane.

---

Your son had an obligation to stop and yield to ALL oncoming traffic before entering into the intersection. So, the other driver did not cross into your son’s lane…it wasn’t your son’s lane yet because your son did not have the right-of-way. The fact that a collision occurred is pretty conclusive evidence that your son did not yield to oncoming traffic. The fact that the oncoming driver also committed a violation does not relieve your son of his obligation to yield.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

The police gave my son a ticket because they thought my son had been hit in the other driver's lane and if that were the case, my son would be guilty and there would be no issue here.

---

Even if the police were mistaken about some specific details, (although, somehow, I'm thinking that they were just as able to competently examine the accident scene as you were) there is still no issue here…your son is guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

I have pictures of skidmarks and debris that prove that the other vehicle had to be in my son's lane at the point of impact. Is that enough to prove that my son is not at fault? How do we use these pictures in court?

---

No, that is not enough to prove your son is not at fault…because your son is at fault. Unless the other driver’s actions were so completely off-the-wall, creating a completely bizarre and unpredictable scenario (like say a flying car coming in for a landing just as your son entered the intersection), no violation of the other driver absolves your son of his obligation to yield to oncoming traffic. Having a trailing car move to the left to pass a car turning right is very commonplace and your son had the obligation to anticipate the possibility of that occurring.

What do you think pleading no contest means? In GDC, if you plead no contest you'll be immediately found guilty and sentence (fine+costs) will be handed out. If you want to explain or otherwise contest the charges, you indeed must plead not guilty. If you appear confused in this (as you appear to have), then the judge is obliged to enter not guilty on your behalf.

Cases are not tried on the side of the road. Despite your son's psychiatric problems, I don't see how any different charging would occur.

Why do you think 804 isn't the appropriate section? Is he really charged with something else?

Your son was obliged to wait until all opposing traffic was clear before entering any of the oncoming lanes. This includes not only he car in the front of the line but everybody behind it.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Why do you think 804 isn't the appropriate section? Is he really charged with something else?

---

It does look like that is the wrong code reference. 46.2-821 would seem to be the correct one. But, it really doesn't matter to OP as it is easily corrected.

That would have made more sense, but 804(2) applies as well. He left his lane before it was safe to do so.

OP hasn't given us the "long story" here, but I can pretty much guess from the sequence of events is the case was continued so that the witness (the poor soul that the kid ran into) can be subpoenaed to appear. It used to be you got into an accident where the at-fault driver was charged, you got subpoenaed as a matter of course (insult to injury), now they wait and see if the cited driver is going to protest the case before bringing in the witnesses.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

My son suffers from an anxiety disorder and could not fully remember what had happened until about 24-48 hours later, after he already talked to the police and insurance people. I suspect that if he had told the police officer what had happened, that both drivers would have received a ticket.

---

So the story you presented here is not the story he gave to the police? What story did he give to the police? Was his story at that time consistent with the other driver's description of the accident?

I'm guessing this: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134938 is OP's son. He has already been told that, absent a miracle, he is not getting out of it.

Ok, let me pose two scenarios:

1. Let's say that the accident had occurred maybe just one second later than when it did. If this had happened, my son would have been hit head on in his own lane. Would he still have been charged with failure to yield? No, he wouldn't have. The driver that hit him would have been charged with something (maybe reckless driving?).

2. If my son had been able to tell the police officer that the other driver had hit him in his own lane because the other driver was in his lane, would my son received the failure to yield charge? I'm not sure he would have. Or maybe both drivers would have been given tickets since they both would have been saying different things.

So the way I see it, the only reason my son got a ticket is because he couldn't give the police officer all the details because he was in a state of shock. That's not right. And you all are saying he would lose in court? He didn't even cause the accident, the other driver did. The other driver was driving in the wrong lane. If there had been no accident there would have been no ticket.


My son realizes he should not have pulled out like he did (according to the law anyway). He's usually very cautious as he's the only person I know who actually drives the speed limit and never over. There were several lessons learned here though. The accident was probably good for him. It taught him that the world won't come to an end if he isn't perfect.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

1. Let's say that the accident had occurred maybe just one second later than when it did. If this had happened, my son would have been hit head on in his own lane. Would he still have been charged with failure to yield? No, he wouldn't have. The driver that hit him would have been charged with something (maybe reckless driving?).

---

In this scenario it is entirely possible that BOTH drivers could receive citations. Your son for failing to yield, because nothing changes the fact he did fail to yield. The other driver might have gotten one for crossing the line.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

2. If my son had been able to tell the police officer that the other driver had hit him in his own lane because the other driver was in his lane, would my son received the failure to yield charge? I'm not sure he would have. Or maybe both drivers would have been given tickets since they both would have been saying different things.

---

Yes, he still could get failure to yield because he DID fail to yield to oncoming traffic.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabird

---

So the way I see it, the only reason my son got a ticket is because he couldn't give the police officer all the details because he was in a state of shock. That's not right. And you all are saying he would lose in court? He didn't even cause the accident, the other driver did. The other driver was driving in the wrong lane. If there had been no accident there would have been no ticket.

---

The officer can only act on what evidence/testimony he has. Your son did not provide any so the other guy's story was all the officer had to go on. Yes it is possible for people to recall traumatic events down the line but it is also possible for the mind to manufacture memories to match expectations. I'm not saying this applies to your son but that it is something courts have to take into account. Yes, your son has a very good chance of losing in court but never say never.

As to the bolded portion, ifs are a wonderful thing. If there had been a police officer that witnessed what happened, even if there was no accident, your son still could have gotten a ticket for failure to yield. It was HIS responsibility to ensure the road was clear. Cars don't simply appear out of nowhere.

Further the presumption in the case where one car was turning left and the other was going straight is that the one turning left failed to yield (or change lanes safely). There's plenty of probable cause for that here.

As stated, since you're going to trial on this, they almost certainly subpoena'd the other driver. Nothing you described here is exculpatory on your son's part. He can pretty much count on losing.