State v. Moak
387 So.2d 1108 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Criminal negligence, an essential element of negligent homicide, requires proof of conduct that amounts to a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonably careful person, which is a higher standard than ordinary negligence. A driver's incorrect choice of action made in response to a perceived sudden emergency, without other aggravating factors, does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- On July 29, 1978, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Nicky L. Moak was driving within the speed limit on a Louisiana highway.
- As Moak came around a curve, he saw bright headlights and believed an oncoming car was in his lane of travel.
- Fearing a head-on collision, Moak applied his brakes and steered his car to the right, onto what he thought was the shoulder.
- Moak's car went into a ditch, bounced up, and struck a car that was parked on the shoulder facing him with its lights on.
- Twelve-year-old Gerald Barber, Jr., who was standing by the parked car, was hit by Moak's car and suffered fatal injuries.
- A blood alcohol test performed on Moak showed a level of 0.05%, which under Louisiana law creates a presumption that he was not under the influence of alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Nicky L. Moak with negligent homicide in a state trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Moak guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Moak to five years at hard labor.
- Moak, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing there was no evidence to prove the essential element of criminal negligence.
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 a driver's conduct constitute criminal negligence when, in response to a reasonable but mistaken belief that another car is in his lane, he takes evasive action that results in a fatal accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Dixon, C.J.
No. The driver's conduct does not constitute criminal negligence because a wrong choice of action made in a perceived emergency does not meet the high standard of a 'gross deviation' from the conduct of a reasonably careful person. The crime of negligent homicide requires proof of 'criminal negligence,' which the court equates to 'gross negligence' in tort law and requires more than a mere deviation from the standard of ordinary care. The evidence showed Moak was not speeding or legally intoxicated. His perception of an oncoming car was logical under the circumstances, and his evasive maneuver was a reasonable reaction to that perceived threat. At most, the facts show ordinary negligence, which is insufficient to sustain a conviction for negligent homicide.
Concurring - Dennis, J.
No. A reasonable trier of fact could not find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that the defendant was guilty of a gross deviation below the standard of care expected of a reasonably careful person.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant distinction between criminal negligence and ordinary civil negligence in Louisiana law. It establishes that a tragic outcome resulting from a reasonable reaction to a sudden emergency does not, by itself, satisfy the high threshold for criminal culpability. The court's ruling protects individuals from homicide convictions for good-faith errors in judgment made under duress, ensuring that criminal liability is reserved for conduct showing a reckless or gross disregard for others' safety. This precedent requires prosecutors to show more than just a fatal mistake to secure a negligent homicide conviction.
