Evening star., 1941-04-07
Appeals Court
Upho|ds Traffic
Homicide Law
Act Gives Defense
Proper Information,
Tribunal Rules
BACKGROUND


Act mGS intended to bridge gap
betUeen manSlGughter and reck-
less driDtng charges in traffic
deaths inUolUing gross careless
ness. Sponsors OF lalD pointed
out that reckless driving lOdS too
light q charge in such cases and
ndnSlaughter, carrying maximum
penalty OF IS years, so drastic
5uries Mould hesitate to apply it
ercept in rCanton cases. La1C ,UaS
attacked as Uague and dmbiCu-
Gus. Convictions lUere telU.
Law-enforcement officers received
new support in their drive against
traffic deaths when the United
States Court of Appeals upheld to-
day the constitutionality of the Dis
trict'S Negligent Homicide Act.
The court ruled that an informal
ton drawn in the language of the
law was sufficiently explicit to in
form the accused person OF the
charge against him.
The act, providing a year in Jail
and 81 900 fine as maximum punish
ment, applies only to traffic deaths
and is patterned on a Michigan law.
Since Congress adopted the law for
the District, however it has brought
few convictions and an appellate
court ruling on its conStitutionallty
had been awaited by prosecuting
officials as highly important in their
effort to curb traffic fatalities.
Figures published last year showed
that a District driver charged with
negligent homicide had a 4to-1
chance to escape conviction, and the
efficacy of the law has been ques-
toned seriously by lawyers and
traffic experts.
Test Case Taken.
The test case carried to the Court
of Appeals involved as defendant
Rufus R. Henderson, 33, colored,
23l6 Champlain street NV. Police
charged him with negligently caus-
ing the death of John Stahl, So.
1910 Biltmore street, who was struck
bv a motorcycle while crossing the
street near Eighteenth street and
Columbia road NV. on June 13,
1910 Mr.. Stahl died in hospital
six days later.
Attorney Earl H. Davis, who repre-
sented Henderson. indicated that he
was considering an appeal for Su-
preme Court review of the case by
asking for writ of certiorari.
United States Attorney Edward
M. Curran said in response to
questions by newspapermen: "All
the cases held up. pending the out
come Of the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals, have been
ordered by me to be Immediately set
down for trial. AS heretofore, all
cases of like character will be
vigorously prosecuted"
The prosecutor directed his order
to Assistant United States Attorney
Arthur j. Mclaughlin, who is in
charge of Police Court work.
Police Judge Walter j. Casey,
holding that the higher courts
should pass on the Negligent Homi-
eide Act. ruled that the informa-
ton filed against Henderson was
insufficient, in that it failed to de-
scribe the alleged offense with suff1-
cient detail to enable Henderson to
prepare an adequate defense.
Justice MilIer's Opinion.
Mr.. Curran and Assistant United
States Attorneys Charles B. Murray
and Dennis Mccarthy contended
that the act properly set forth the
essential ingredients of negligent
homicide; sufficiently informed the
accused with reasonable certainty of
the charges he must meet, and sat-
isfied required constitutional stand
ards.
An opinion written today by ASso-
ciate Justice Justin Miller said that
"the mere fact that the specified
standard of liability may be one OF
varying degree does not make
criminal law unconstitutional" and
added, concerning the attack on the
law, because it was allegedly un-
constitutional:
"The words and phrases used in
the presently applicable statute, l.e.,
immoderate rate of speed. careless,
reckless, negligent manner; wilMlly
wantonly and cause are all well
known, both in common speech and
in the terminology of the law. They
have been used in other jurisdic
tions to define similar offenSeS, and
have been approved by the courts
as appropriate and sufficient for
that purpose. We conclude, there
fore. that they are sufficient to
bring the statute within the re-
auirements of constitutionality,
hence that the first question
whether the law was constitutionaD
must the answered in the affirma-
tive.
THE judgment is. therefore, re-
yerSed. and the cause remanded
with instructions to the lower court
to proceed in conformity with this
opinion"
Recalls Passage of Act.
Hearing the case with Associate
Justice Miller were Chief Justice D.
Lawrence Groner and Associate JUS
tice Riley Rutledge.
Assistant United States Attorney
Mccarthy, who, behalf of the dis
trict attorneys Office, had success
fully sought the writ of error in the
appellate tribunal from Police Court
recalled that Congress passed the
Negligent Homicide Act to bridge
the gap between the charge of man.
slaughter and reckless driving.
Manslaughter, he asserted, was
too severe, because it carries upon
conviction maximum punishment
of Is years, and there must be gross
or wanton reckleSSnesS. Reckless
driving is considered too lenient in
traffic death cases, as it carries
maximum punishment of fine of
only $l00 and imprisonment up to
30 days. Mr.. Mccarthy pointed out
that grand juries are hesitant to
indict for manslaughter in traffic
cases, and even where an indictment
is brought in trial juries hesitate
to convict.