Winningham v. State
Unreported, but identified as No. 143, 2022 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Criminally negligent homicide requires a failure to perceive a risk of death that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe, and prolonged inattention while driving a large commercial vehicle at highway speed can meet this standard.
Facts:
- Brian Winningham was driving a fully loaded tractor-trailer on Interstate 95 in Delaware on a clear, dry day with moderate traffic.
- Winningham was traveling at 68-70 miles per hour with cruise control engaged, nearing the maximum speed limit, and had passed numerous other tractor-trailers in the preceding 20 minutes.
- As Winningham approached an exit, a line of stopped traffic was visible in his lane, but he diverted his attention from the roadway for at least four seconds.
- Winningham did not brake or attempt to swerve into an empty adjacent lane or improved shoulder to avoid the stopped vehicles.
- Winningham's tractor-trailer crashed into three stopped cars at 67 miles per hour, killing two people and injuring two others.
- In a post-crash statement, Winningham claimed he was reaching for a drink and only noticed traffic had stopped as he looked up, but the trial court found inaccuracies in his statement and gave it little weight.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Winningham was tried by a judge in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (a trial court of general jurisdiction) on charges including criminally negligent homicide and vehicular assault.
- The trial judge found Winningham guilty of two counts of criminally negligent homicide, one count of vehicular assault in the second degree, one count of vehicular assault in the third degree, and one count of inattentive driving.
- Winningham, the defendant below, appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, arguing insufficient evidence for criminal negligence and an error in the trial court's application of the law regarding the required risk perception.
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 prolonged inattention while operating a fully loaded tractor-trailer at highway speed, resulting in a fatal collision with stopped traffic, constitute criminal negligence, and did the trial court err by stating the risk as 'death or serious physical injury' rather than 'death'?
Opinions:
Majority - Seitz, Chief Justice
Yes, a driver's prolonged inattention while operating a fully loaded tractor-trailer at highway speed, resulting in a fatal collision with stopped traffic, does constitute criminal negligence, and the trial court did not err in its application of the law. The Supreme Court affirmed Winningham's convictions for criminally negligent homicide, finding sufficient evidence for the trial judge to conclude that Winningham's inattentive driving grossly deviated from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. The court highlighted several factors: Winningham's inattention lasted at least four seconds, during which he traveled over 400 feet; the stopped traffic was likely visible for longer than four seconds given his elevated position and clear conditions; his complete failure to brake or attempt to avoid the collision demonstrated an abnormal lack of attention to his surroundings; and, unlike other cases, there was no credible mitigating explanation for his inattention. The court distinguished this case from others based on the prolonged nature and lack of mitigation for the inattention. Regarding the trial court's phrasing of 'risk of death or serious physical injury,' the Supreme Court found it was addressing both the homicide and vehicular assault charges simultaneously and did not indicate a misunderstanding of the law, especially as both parties presented the correct standard. Even if there was an error, it was harmless given the inherent risk of death from such a collision with a fully-loaded tractor-trailer.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of criminal negligence to inattentive driving in Delaware, particularly when a commercial vehicle is involved and the inattention is prolonged and unmitigated. It reinforces that while inattention is common, its severity and context can elevate it to a 'gross deviation' from a reasonable standard of care, leading to criminal culpability. The decision also underscores the appellate court's deference to a trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations in bench trials, especially when evaluating whether sufficient evidence supports a finding of criminal negligence. Future cases involving vehicular fatalities due to inattention will likely consider the duration of inattention, the type of vehicle, environmental conditions, and any attempts to mitigate the risk.
