Intoxication Manslaughter Charges After a Car Accident

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Texas

I have a friend who was involved in a fatal accident. They made a legal left turn, a motorcycle slammed into the front of the vehicle. The motorcyclist died, my friend was charged with failure to yield and intoxication manslaughter. We know the motorcyclist was 2x (intoxicated) the legal limit and the speedometer of the bike was stuck at over 20 mph above the posted limit. We know that my friends blood came back at .09 and their speed is estimated at 10mph at time of collision. Is this reasonable doubt that at minimum, both parties played in the causation of the accident? Does the statute for intoxication manslaughter stand in a case like this?

Quote:

---

At What Point is It Beyond Reasonable Doubt

---

that is a determination made by the trier of facts (the judge if a bench trial or the jury in a jury trial).

that can only be determined at the trial. Everything else is speculation (think OJ Simpson trial)

but in your situation, it is clear your friends failure to yield is THE cause of the accident and death. Given the fact the motorcycle hit the front of your friends car, the riders intoxication nor speed was pertinent to the accident. The bike was apparently so close to the intersection that even if he had been 100% sober and within the speed limit he still could not have avoided your friend abruptly turning in front of him.

It's all very speculative. There was a case VERY SIMILAR in a nearby city, where that deceased driver was sober and speeding. The accused was given a DWI. I still would think that at that driving above the limit shows the deceased was reckless. If going slower, the bike would have never approached the intersection as quickly as it did. Then there is the question of visibility of a bike, especially at night. I hope it doesn't go to trial for my friend, that's a scary thought.

Quote:

---

Quoting Texas Penal Code, Sec. 49.08. Intoxication Manslaughter.

---

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and

(2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.

(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

---

The victim's intoxication is not relevant to the questions of whether (a) the defendant was intoxicated, or (b) whether the defendant's intoxication caused the death of the motorcycle driver by virtue of a mistake he made while conducting his vehicle.

You have not shared complete facts about the accident, but it would seem reasonable to infer that your friend would have been completing a legal left turn had he yielded right-of-way to the motorcyclist, but that the motorcyclist had right of way.

Quote:

---

Quoting fightingFORJustice

---

It's all very speculative. There was a case VERY SIMILAR in a nearby city, where that deceased driver was sober and speeding. The accused was given a DWI. I still would think that at that driving above the limit shows the deceased was reckless. If going slower, the bike would have never approached the intersection as quickly as it did. Then there is the question of visibility of a bike, especially at night. I hope it doesn't go to trial for my friend, that's a scary thought.

---

it may be speculative to you but from an objective point of view, it simply isn't.

given your facts presented (hitting the front of your friends vehicle), nothing you are trying to claim to push liability onto the bike rider does do that. It doesn't matter if he was pulling a wheelie and standing on the seat when the collision occurred. Given he hit the front of your friends vehicle, there was simply no time for even the most cautious, well prepared, sober, and law abiding riders to be able to avoid the accident.

as to the visibility of the bike: nope, not a chance, unless he was riding a wheelie. The lights on a bike are DOT certified as meeting specific standards and as such, arguing your friend didn't see the bike will be an admission he was too drunk to see what everybody else could see.

There are a lot of details that are unclear. The police were unable to complete an accident reconstruction.

Quote:

---

Quoting fightingFORJustice

---

There are a lot of details that are unclear. The police were unable to complete an accident reconstruction.

---

unable to complete an accident reconstruction? Not possible. They can always complete an accident reconstruction. If there are critical details missing it may mean the results are not dependable or accurate enough to be used but they can always complete a reconstruction.

but again, not even an accident reconstruction would save your friend, based on what you have posted. There are not so many details missing that are pertinent that he is going to walk away from this. The basic facts are clear: your friend was drunk. He turned, without having right of way, into the path of another vehicle. The operator of the other vehicle died due to injuries sustained in the accident.

so, unless your friend can pull something out of his butt that somehow proves the other driver caused the accident, your friend is going to be found guilty of some charge.