State v. Archer
1993 WL 146158, 619 So. 2d 1071 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for vehicular homicide, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offender's unlawful blood alcohol concentration (or drug influence) combined with their operation of a vehicle to proximately cause the victim's death, and not merely that the intoxication coincided with an accident primarily attributable to another's fault.
Facts:
- Shortly after midnight on May 25, 1991, Brent Nicholson was killed as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident near Acadian Thruway and Perkins Road in Baton Rouge.
- Nicholson was a passenger in a Toyota Camry driven by Matt Laird, which was traveling north on Stanford Avenue, crossing Perkins Road.
- Mike Archer, driving a large Chevrolet van, was traveling south on Acadian Thruway and was turning left into an Exxon service station when his van was struck by the Camry.
- After the accident, a paramedic detected the odor of alcohol on Archer's breath, and Officer Murial Hall observed beer cans at the scene, with both drivers admitting to having consumed alcohol.
- A blood sample taken from Archer at 2:25 a.m. revealed a .12% blood alcohol concentration and the presence of cocaine.
- The young men in the Camry, including the driver Matt Laird, had been drinking beer earlier that evening, with Laird reportedly consuming two to three beers.
- An accident reconstruction expert opined that Archer's van was traveling at approximately 15 mph, while the Camry was traveling at least 45-50 mph, and Archer took no evasive actions prior to the collision.
- A traffic engineer testified that the intersection's traffic signal was traffic-responsive and that if a southbound left-turn arrow was green (as Archer claimed), northbound through traffic would have a red light.
Procedural Posture:
- Mike Archer was charged by grand jury indictment with vehicular homicide, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:32.1.
- Archer waived his right to a trial by jury.
- The trial court found Archer guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Archer to serve a term of eight years at hard labor, suspended five years of the term, and ordered him to serve two years of supervised probation upon his release from custody.
- Archer appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mike Archer's unlawful blood alcohol concentration combined with his operation of a vehicle proximately caused Brent Nicholson's death, or was the accident primarily attributable to the other driver's actions, raising reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Whipple, J.
No, the state did not provide sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mike Archer's unlawful blood alcohol concentration combined with his operation of a vehicle proximately caused Brent Nicholson's death. The court applied the standard of review from Jackson v. Virginia and Louisiana's circumstantial evidence test (LSA-R.S. 15:438), which requires that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. Citing State v. Taylor, the court reiterated that vehicular homicide requires proof that the offender's unlawful blood alcohol concentration combined with their vehicle operation to cause the death, not merely that the alcohol consumption coincided with an accident without fault on the part of the accused. The court noted that Archer's statement at the scene about having a green left-turn arrow was neither disproved nor disputed. If Archer had a green turn arrow, it would be reasonable for him, regardless of intoxication, to assume oncoming traffic would stop. Considering the expert testimony that the Camry was speeding significantly (45-50 mph in a 40 mph zone) and Archer's limited visibility at night due to an incline and focus on his turn, the court concluded that the hypothesis that Laird (the Camry driver) was speeding and ran a red light was "sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Consequently, the evidence was deemed insufficient to establish the necessary causation linking Archer's intoxication to the victim's death, and the conviction was reversed.
Dissenting - Shortess, J.
Yes, the state provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mike Archer was guilty of vehicular homicide. Justice Shortess concurred with the State v. Taylor standard, which requires proof that an offender's unlawful blood alcohol concentration combined with their vehicle operation caused the death. However, applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard of review, he believed the evidence supported the conviction. Justice Shortess argued that Archer's turn into the Exxon station was not governed by the left-turn signal light specifically for turning onto Perkins Road, meaning he was still obligated by general rules of the road to exercise due care and yield to oncoming traffic. He emphasized that Archer, driving a large van with a higher seating position, should have been in a better position to observe oncoming traffic, yet took no evasive action. The dissent concluded that Archer's .12 blood alcohol level combined with his failure to maintain a proper lookout and yield to oncoming traffic was the cause of the victim's death, and that the traffic signal issue should not be entirely determinative of fault.
Analysis:
This case underscores the stringent causation requirement in vehicular homicide, clarifying that the state must establish a direct causal link between the defendant's intoxication and the fatality, beyond mere temporal coincidence. It sets a high bar for the prosecution to negate reasonable alternative hypotheses of innocence, especially when evidence suggests multiple contributing factors or the fault of another party. The decision highlights the importance of thorough accident reconstruction and traffic signal analysis in demonstrating whether a defendant's intoxication was a proximate cause, or if the accident would have occurred regardless of their impairment due to external factors like another driver's negligence. This precedent reinforces the principle that criminal liability requires direct fault, even in cases involving serious offenses like vehicular homicide.
