State v. Caibaiosai
122 Wis. 2d 587, 363 N.W.2d 574 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute criminalizing homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle is constitutional even if it does not require the prosecution to prove a direct causal connection between the defendant's intoxication and the resulting death. An affirmative defense provision that allows a defendant to prove the death would have occurred regardless of intoxication does not unconstitutionally compel self-incrimination.
Facts:
- Gary Caibaiosai was driving his motorcycle eastbound on Highway 142 with Janet Tunkieicz as his passenger.
- Caibaiosai pulled into the oncoming lane to pass another motorcycle, operated by David Dickinson, at an estimated speed of 60 to 65 miles per hour.
- After completing the pass and returning to the correct lane, Caibaiosai's motorcycle went into the gravel along a curve in the road.
- The motorcycle skidded into a ditch, traveled approximately 180 to 200 feet, and struck a utility pole.
- The impact threw Tunkieicz from the motorcycle, and she struck a tree, resulting in her instant death.
- Approximately two hours after the accident, a blood sample taken from Caibaiosai showed a blood alcohol content of 0.13 percent, and a later breathalyzer test showed 0.11 percent.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Caibaiosai was charged in a Wisconsin trial court with homicide by intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle under sec. 940.09(1)(a).
- At the conclusion of his trial, Caibaiosai requested a jury instruction on the statutory affirmative defense, which the trial court refused to give.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Caibaiosai filed a post-conviction motion for a new trial, arguing the statute was unconstitutional and the judge erred in denying the instruction; the trial court denied the motion.
- Caibaiosai, as appellant, appealed the conviction and the denial of his post-conviction motion to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which granted certification to hear the case.
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 Wisconsin Statute § 940.09(1)(a) violate constitutional due process by criminalizing homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle without requiring the state to prove a causal connection between the defendant's intoxication and the victim's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Steinmetz, J.
No. The statute does not violate due process. The legislature has constitutionally determined that operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated is an inherently dangerous and antisocial act, and when this conduct causes a death, it may be punished as a felony without requiring a separate causal link between the state of intoxication itself and the death. The prosecution must prove a causal connection between the defendant's unlawful conduct—the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated—and the victim's death. The legislature has deemed this combined activity so dangerous that the foreseeability of death is inherent. The affirmative defense provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as the pressure to present a defense and offer testimony is a common strategic dilemma in criminal trials and does not amount to compelled testimony. Finally, the trial court properly denied the affirmative defense instruction because the defendant's evidence of an intervening cause was purely speculative and did not meet the required burden of proof.
Dissenting - Abrahamson, J.
Yes. The statute violates due process by unconstitutionally dispensing with the state's burden to prove a causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct (intoxication or faulty operation due to intoxication) and the resulting death. Requiring the state to prove only that the vehicle's operation caused the death allows for homicide convictions in situations where the driver is blameless for the death, such as being rear-ended at a stoplight or when a child darts into the road. The affirmative defense unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof, effectively requiring the defendant to prove their innocence. This scheme violates fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and fairness embodied in the due process clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legislature's power to create strict liability public welfare offenses, particularly regarding drunk driving. It establishes that for homicide by intoxicated use, the prohibited act is the entire conduct of driving while intoxicated, and the causation element connects the vehicle's operation during this prohibited state to the death. This significantly lowers the prosecution's burden, relieving it of the often difficult task of proving that the driver's impairment, specifically, caused the fatal accident. The ruling reflects a strong public policy of deterrence, holding intoxicated drivers responsible for any fatal consequences of their driving, regardless of whether intoxication was the direct 'but-for' cause of the specific event that led to the death.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Caibaiosai