Opinion ID: 1845798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the lower court err in refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case, at the close of stever's case, and after the verdict of the jury?

Text: We have long recognized that in considering vehicular manslaughter cases the issue is not whether the defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors, but whether the defendant was guilty of culpable negligence. Dickerson v. State, 441 So.2d 536 (Miss. 1983); Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042 (Miss. 1979); Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 764, 4 So.2d 289 (1941). To obtain a conviction for vehicular manslaughter it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of culpable negligence. In Dickerson v. State, 441 So.2d 536 (Miss. 1983), we cited Smith v. State, 197 Miss. 802, 20 So.2d 701 (1945), and set forth the requirements necessary to prove culpable negligence. Dickerson held that Smith requires that the state must prove that the defendant ... was guilty of such gross negligence on the occasion complained of as to evince on his part a wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of human life, or such an indifference to the consequences of his act under the surrounding circumstances as to render his conduct tantamount to wilfulness. 197 Miss. at 812, 20 So.2d at 703. The Smith opinion goes on to make clear that: The phrase indifference to consequences when used in an instruction defining culpable negligence should clearly inform the jury that what is meant is an indifference under the circumstances involving danger to human life  the equivalent to criminal intent. 197 Miss. at 814, 20 So.2d at 704. (Emphasis added). Dickerson at 538. Culpable negligence was defined as follows: In order then to give the term culpable negligence in the statute its proper setting instead of harking back to gross negligence, the term culpable negligence should be construed to mean a negligence of a higher degree than that which in civil cases is held to be gross negligence, and must be a negligence of a degree so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life, and that this shall be so clearly evidenced as to place it beyond every reasonable doubt. 197 Miss. at 818-819, 20 So.2d at 706. (Emphasis added). Dickerson at 538. The question is did the prosecution present evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stever was negligent to such a degree that he was totally indifferent to the safety of human life? The record has shown that Lorraine Road is a curvy road and the area where the collision occurred was poorly lighted, and the roadway centerline was faded. There was no evidence that Stever was speeding or driving recklessly as he approached the accident scene nor was there any evidence that Stever's physical or mental abilities were impaired by the alcohol. The ambulance driver at the scene after the accident testified that Stever was alert and conscious of his surroundings and conscious of what was going on about him. The most conclusive evidence against Stever is the testimony of Mrs. Jarrell that she saw Stever's headlights travel into Zitano's lane but this witness also said she heard the accident rather than saw it. [1]