Opinion ID: 1668605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unconsciousness prior to the accident

Text: The record reveals that the only evidence the defendant presented at trial to support his contention that he suffered a sudden loss of consciousness was his own testimony. On direct examination, the defendant was asked to recall the events prior to the accident. His testimony is set forth as follows: Q: What happened? A: I must haveI passed out and I hit a car, first. I don't reallydon't remember, but I remember, but I hit a car and then I proceeded on down the street. The car proceeded on down the street, and so, like I said, I don't know if it wasit could have been that I didn't know where I was driving or it could haveor it could have been damage from the other car thatthat caused me to run in, you know, to. Q: Do you recall the impact of your car with the Storjohn car? A: Yes, but IImore or less that's when I woke up, after that. The defendant further testified that he told a police officer at the scene of the accident that he did not remember anything during the accident and that he must have blacked out or passed out. The defendant's testimony as to his recollection of events prior to the accident is inconsistent and contradictory. Without corroborating evidence, either in the form of medical testimony or other witnesses, it is difficult to reasonably infer from his testimony that he was unconscious prior to the accident. Therefore, the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy the threshold requirement for the loss of consciousness defense, and it was error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the defense.