State v. Taylor
463 So. 2d 1274 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Vehicular homicide under La.R.S. 14:32.1 requires proof of a causal relationship between an offender's unlawful blood alcohol concentration (0.10% or more) and the death of a human being, in combination with the operation of a vehicle.
Facts:
- Walter J. Taylor was involved in a fatal accident on February 10, 1984.
- Taylor was charged by the State of Louisiana with vehicular homicide under La.R.S. 14:32.1.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter J. Taylor was charged by the State of Louisiana with vehicular homicide.
- Taylor filed a motion to quash the bill of information in the state trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court construed La.R.S. 14:32.1 as establishing unconstitutional presumptions of negligence and causation.
- The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional and granted Taylor's motion to quash the bill of information.
- The State of Louisiana appealed the trial court's ruling to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (State of Louisiana is appellant, Walter J. Taylor is appellee).
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 Louisiana vehicular homicide statute (La.R.S. 14:32.1) require the state to prove a causal link between an offender's unlawful blood alcohol concentration and the victim's death, or does it establish a presumption of causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dennis
Yes, the Louisiana vehicular homicide statute (La.R.S. 14:32.1) requires the state to prove a causal link between an offender's unlawful blood alcohol concentration and the victim's death, in combination with the operation of a vehicle. The court found that the statute does not create any presumptions of causation or negligence that would relieve the state of its burden of proof. A genuine construction of the statute's language and purpose indicates a legislative intent to punish only those whose unlawful blood alcohol concentration (BAC) combined with their vehicle operation actually causes a death, rather than merely coinciding with an accident. Louisiana's criminal code mandates that criminal conduct must 'produce' criminal consequences, implying a causal relationship unless explicitly stated otherwise. Furthermore, common law principles, which form the historical basis of Louisiana's criminal law, require a causal link between a killing and the actor's culpable conduct for any homicide conviction. To interpret the statute otherwise would make it an 'aberration from common law principles' and would constitute unwarranted statutory overkill by punishing individuals whose BAC did not cause the fatality.
Concurring - Justice Calogero
Yes, the trial judge was incorrect in declaring the statute unconstitutional, but the majority's interpretation regarding causation needs clarification. Justice Calogero agreed with the reversal of the trial court's decision but hesitated to fully endorse the majority opinion if it implies that merely proving a 0.10% BAC combined with vehicle operation and a death is sufficient. He suggested that a required additional element must be a showing that the 0.10% BAC either caused or was accompanied by at least negligent or substandard operation of the vehicle, questioning how a high BAC could otherwise directly cause a death.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the element of causation in statutory crimes, particularly vehicular homicide. It establishes that even when a statute sets a specific threshold (like a BAC level), a direct causal link between the prohibited condition (unlawful BAC combined with operation) and the resulting harm (death) must be proven by the state. This ruling prevents the statute from being applied as a strict liability offense where the mere presence of intoxication during a fatal accident would suffice for conviction, thereby protecting individuals whose intoxication may not have actually caused the incident. It reinforces the fundamental criminal law principle that conduct must produce criminal consequences and highlights the importance of interpreting statutes in line with legislative intent and common law principles.
