Dangerous driving charge

[pallidamors]

I've been talking to my lawyer, and he thinks there's a chance that I'll still be able to get a "not guilty" verdict for the dangerous driving charge, because I have evidence of having a seizure. The only problem is that the medical records say it was from methamphetamine (and I have no way of arguing against that). But still, I've already been charged for driving on meth, so wouldn't that make the dangerous driving charge unnecessary?

Just after a few thoughts.

Not necessarily. I was in a similar situation and still got charged with reckless driving and a DUI initially, although they later ended up discarding the reckless charge.

However if you had a seizure theres a good chance you could get not guilty on the dangerous driving charge. I had a friend who was making a dope run, seizured, and ran his car into a snowbank. After presenting medical evidence the charges were dropped, but he also didnt have any drugs in the car or in his system at the time.

 

[toa$t]

You're argument is flawed. Methamphetamine is an illegal drug which the OP voluntarily ingested. Intent is not an issue.

i'm happy to argue with you about this, but you're going to have to give me a bit more to work with. consuming an illegal substance doesn't remove issues of intent from the equation.

 

[forgotten]

i'm happy to argue with you about this, but you're going to have to give me a bit more to work with. consuming an illegal substance doesn't remove issues of intent from the equation.

Ingesting illegal drugs prior to operating a motor vehicle introduces an element of culpability. I'll be happy to explain more tomorrow if you would like.

 

[AChemicalLife]

I can see the points that are being made.

1) Going driving, during benzo W/D, knowing you will have a chance to seizure = intent to cause danger
2) Going driving, during a meth sesh, not having ever heard of or known meth to lead to such, was a bad decision, but you did not intend any sort of damage. Stimulants improve concentration and focus, and I personally would much rather drive on my Adderall (prescription) than not.
3) Going driving while under the influence = intent, to some.

I believe DUI would be the proper charge. That's not to say that neither or both could successfully be prosecuted or defended against in court in your case.

But all to this end, it doesn't matter. OP's recourse is the same, and should seek immediate free consultations with several other attorneys in the area and see what each thinks of your case, the seizure idea, and any other ideas each comes up with. Then make your decision.

As for the legal technicalities of the case, OP's question pertained specifically to them, so carry on, just play nice

 

[toa$t]

Ingesting illegal drugs prior to operating a motor vehicle introduces an element of culpability. I'll be happy to explain more tomorrow if you would like.

yes, you have already stated that as your position, and it is correct with regard to an impaired driving charge. that isn't sufficient for culpability with regard to a dangerous driving charge. as other posters have stated, the impaired driving and the dangerous driving charge are separate.

remember, you have to grant me the assumption that meth + seizure = unforeseeable. if you don't grant that assumption, of course the defence falls apart. but that is precisely the argument that has to be made. we can argue about the truth of that assumption if you want, but that isn't what you have done so far.

 

[toa$t]

by the way forgotten, i am not saying your position isn't possible. it's very possible that New Zealand has enacted statutes that support your position. I, however, am not an expert on New Zealand's particular statutory enactments with regard to strict liability for dangerous driving when illegal drugs are involved. there may very well be one. I am simply arguing the common law position.

 

[forgotten]

yes, you have already stated that as your position, and it is correct with regard to an impaired driving charge. that isn't sufficient for culpability with regard to a dangerous driving charge. as other posters have stated, the impaired driving and the dangerous driving charge are separate.

remember, you have to grant me the assumption that meth + seizure = unforeseeable. if you don't grant that assumption, of course the defence falls apart. but that is precisely the argument that has to be made. we can argue about the truth of that assumption if you want, but that isn't what you have done so far.

First, I applaud the perseverance of you and your argument.

My argument is two fold:

1. Ingesting illegal drugs can result in many negative side effects.
2. The consumption illegal drugs is a marked departure from the reasonable standard of care that must be exercised while operating a motor vehicle.

As to my first point, I am conceding that having a seizure from methamphetamine use is unforeseeable. I will add that there are many unforeseeable results that come from ingesting illegal drugs, which is why they are regulated in the manner in which they are. The fact that a person doesn't know the results of taking illegal drugs is irrelevant in such a general intent offense*, due to their illicit nature.

Secondly, there is the reasonable standard of care that must be exercised while operating a motor vehicle. My argument would be that there is a marked departure from the reasonable standard of care and that the act of consuming illicitly produced drugs prior to operating a motor vehicle is negligent. Such would have to be decided by a judge or jury, as stated in my first post. If it were possible to get a jury of people enlightened about the relative safety of responsible drug use, I would like the chances of winning. However, we both know that's not realistic.

* I'm also not familiar with NZ law, so I don't know if this is a general intent crime or if NZ has deemed it a public-welfare offense, making it a strict liability issue. Should the latter be true then I guess we are both wasting our time

 

[AChemicalLife]

First, I applaud the perseverance of you and your argument.

My argument is two fold:

1. Ingesting illegal drugs can result in many negative side effects.
2. The consumption illegal drugs is a marked departure from the reasonable standard of care that must be exercised while operating a motor vehicle.

The fact that a person doesn't know the results of taking illegal drugs is irrelevant in such a general intent offense*, due to their illicit nature.

Is it irrelevant? If so, why is every DUI involving illicit materials not also charged with/as reckless driving? Why is it irrelevant, given their illicit status? Shouldn't it just be DWI + possession/consumption of methamphetamine? (Not sure how the law works in NZ re: "being caught while being intoxicated").

Secondly, there is the reasonable standard of care that must be exercised while operating a motor vehicle. My argument would be that there is a marked departure from the reasonable standard of care and that the act of consuming illicitly produced drugs prior to operating a motor vehicle is negligent.

True, but the act of consuming legally produced vodka before driving is also negligent....

...your argument would also imply that there is clearly a parallel to driving drunk, wherein there is a marked departure from the reasonable standard of care required to operate a motor vehicle. Alcohol is legal, why does your argument incorporate the extra element of illegality of consumed substances? I believe your argument works more universally (any intoxicating substance while driving, illicit or not), but does not apply to the degree of specificity required to mark a difference between driving while intoxicated, and driving on illegal drugs....

 

[toa$t]

also forgotten, those are the civil standards (where I agree that my argument hold absolutely no water). we're in criminal here. I will respond in more detail, but have WAY too much stuff to do right now.

 

[Sweet P]

Is it irrelevant? If so, why is every DUI involving illicit materials not also charged with/as reckless driving? Why is it irrelevant, given their illicit status? Shouldn't it just be DWI + possession/consumption of methamphetamine? (Not sure how the law works in NZ re: "being caught while being intoxicated").

"Driving while impaired" (I think that's the term) is what you're charged with if caught driving drunk or on drugs. I was charged with that after my blood tested positive for methamphetamine. My dangerous driving charge is separate because I crashed my car after having the seizure (which I'm challenging in court, because I wasn't intentionally driving dangerously and didn't know that methamphetamine would cause the seizure), and my possession charges are also separate because I was carrying drugs and paraphernalia in my car.

 

[AChemicalLife]

"Driving while impaired" (I think that's the term) is what you're charged with if caught driving drunk or on drugs. I was charged with that after my blood tested positive for methamphetamine. My dangerous driving charge is separate because I crashed my car after having the seizure (which I'm challenging in court, because I wasn't intentionally driving dangerously and didn't know that methamphetamine would cause the seizure), and my possession charges are also separate because I was carrying drugs and paraphernalia in my car.

That's what I figured...

separate charges for reckless driving and DWI, but the DWI covers illicit materials. that's the point i was trying to make.

 

[forgotten]

also forgotten, those are the civil standards (where I agree that my argument hold absolutely no water). we're in criminal here. I will respond in more detail, but have WAY too much stuff to do right now.

Legg J.A. found that proof of a marked departure from the norm was sufficient to sustain a conviction for dangerous driving without any express finding of advertent negligence. He held that there was ample evidence to support the finding of the trial judge that the appellant's actions represented a gross departure from the standard of care of a prudent driver.

R. v. Hundal [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867

If so, why is every DUI involving illicit materials not also charged with/as reckless driving?

Because the elements necessary to prove reckless driving are elements that can also be used to prove that someone is DUI. Generally speaking prosecutors will file the greater charge which is DUI. In fact, it is contrary to the law in many jurisdictions for someone to be charged with both, unless there is a clear distinction between two separate overt acts.

Alcohol is legal, why does your argument incorporate the extra element of illegality of consumed substances?

Because alcohol is produced within the limits of the law and is strictly regulated. A person can be reasonably sure that the vodka they purchase will be exactly the same every time. Illicit drugs are produced without regulation, leading to unknown results (e.g. PMA).

 

[toa$t]

nice one. I actually just looked at Hundal today and realized you were right.