Court Opinion

ID: 9855512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:26:37.862892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:06.783611
License: Public Domain

Durham, J.
(concurring)—In the view of the majority, the crime of vehicular homicide is defined such that "impairment due to alcohol must be a proximate cause of the fatal accident." Majority, at 231. This may be a correct interpretation of the crime described by RCW 46.61.520 prior to its amendment in 1983. State v. Engstrom, 79 Wn.2d 469, 475, 487 P.2d 205 (1971). In my view, however, it is not a correct construction of the current statutory provision.
*236The effects of the 1983 amendments on RCW 46.61.520 were as follows (underlining represents new language):
(1) When the death of any person ((shall)) ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury ((received)) proximately caused)) by the driving of any vehicle by any person while under the influence of ((or affected by)) intoxicating liquor or ((drugs)) any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502 . . . the person so operating such vehicle ((shail~be)) is guilty of ((negligent)) vehicular homicide ((by means of a motor vehicle)).
Laws of 1983, ch. 164, § 1, p. 719. As can be seen, under the pre-1983 statutory language, the crime of "negligent homicide by means of a motor vehicle" described the act of causing mortal injury by driving "while under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor ..." (Italics mine.) As a result of the 1983 amendments, however, the crime is renamed "vehicular homicide", and describes the act of causing mortal injury by driving "while under the influence of intoxicating liquor ... as defined by RCW 46.61.502 . . ." (Italics mine.)
RCW 46.61.502, to which the 1983 amendments newly refer, provides four alternative definitions of driving "while under the influence of intoxicating liquor", thus establishing the crime commonly known as "DWI". Under RCW 46.61.502(1) and (2), a driver is driving while under the influence if his breath or blood alcohol content exceeds stated minima. DWI also obtains when the driver is "under the influence of or affected by" liquor or drugs or both. RCW 46.61.502(3) and (4). None of these definitions requires proof that the driver's drinking has impaired his ability to drive. See Bellevue v. Redlack, 40 Wn. App. 689, 693-95, 700 P.2d 363, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1013 (1985). The crime of DWI consists merely of driving while "legally intoxicated"—i.e., with a certain level of intoxicant in the system, or while affected by an intoxicant.
Because it incorporates the DWI definitions, the crime of vehicular homicide similarly cannot require proof that driving ability actually is impaired. And since impairment *237need not be proven, how can it be that a causal relationship between impairment and injury must be shown? Such a construction ignores the incorporation of the DWI definitions, and leaves the crime unchanged from its pre-1983 amendment. The only textually honest interpretation of the statute is that it does not require proof of impairment-injury causation.2
The majority requires a causal relationship between impairment and injury in order "to avoid a 'strict liability' result ..." Majority, at 231. This approach is exactly contrary to stated legislative intent. DWI is designedly an "illegal per se" offense. See State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 186, 751 P.2d 294 (1988) (discussing RCW 46.61-.502(1)); State v. Franco, 96 Wn.2d 816, 819-20, 639 P.2d 1320 (1982) (discussing precursor to what is now RCW 46.61.502(2)). The per se approach recognizes dangerous drunk driving as a problem of a severity that only clear-cut preventatives, overbroad though they may be,3 are capable of addressing. The DWI laws are not only deterrents, however. The legislative scheme reflects also a judgment that the drinking driver is culpable for willfully creating the risk that he might cause serious harm to others. Cf. Presidential Comm'n on Drunk Driving, Final Report 3 (November 1983) (drunk driving is "socially unacceptable" and "will not be tolerated"); State v. Caibaiosai, 122 Wis. 2d 587, 593, 363 N.W.2d 574 (1985) ("combining the operation of a *238motor vehicle with being in an intoxicated state is conduct which is malum prohibitum and is pervasively antisocial").
In 1983, the Legislature took this disapproval of drunk driving to its logical next steps. If drinking drivers generally are culpable, the Legislature reasoned, drinking drivers who injure or kill are more culpable. See Final Legislative Bill Report, SB 3106, at 1 (1983) ("greater penalties should be imposed on a DWI defendant when his actions have caused another person serious bodily injuries."). The statutory expression of this reasoning is the incorporation of the per se DWI definitions into the renamed crime of vehicular homicide and the creation of a new crime, also described in terms of the DWI definitions, of vehicular assault. RCW 46.61.522.
To my mind, the scheme of the three DWI statutes is clear and logical: building on the basic DWI offense, the Legislature has imposed higher penalties depending on the consequences of the illegal conduct. None of the crimes requires proof of actual impairment. And, thus, none should be held to require proof of a causal relationship between impairment and injury. Cf. Micinski v. State, 487 N.E.2d 150, 153-54 (Ind. 1986). I think the legislated scheme is well described by the following passage from a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, interpreting that state's vehicular homicide statute:
Under this statute there is an inherently dangerous activity in which it is reasonably foreseeable that driving while intoxicated may result in the death of an individual. The legislature has determined this activity so inherently dangerous that proof of it need not require causal connection between the defendant's intoxication and the death.
Caibaiosai, at 594; see also Micinski, at 154.
Unfortunately, a majority of this court is not convinced by my arguments, but subscribes to Justice Pearson's view that vehicular homicide occurs only when a proximate causal relationship is demonstrated between a defendant's impairment from alcohol and a fatal automobile accident. Thus, that is the law applicable to this case, and to the cases of future defendants. Considering then the adequacy *239of the jury instructions under that law, I concur in Justice Pearson's judgment reversing MacMaster's conviction. This action does not signal abandonment of my intellectual reservations to the court's holding. Rather, it recognizes that ultimate resolution of the causation issue may have to await legislative clarification.
Callow, C.J., and Brachtenbach and Andersen, JJ., concur with Durham, J.

In addition to the reference to RCW 46.61.502, textual evidence supportive of this construction can be found in the 1983 Legislature's decision to rename the crime RCW 46.61.520 defines. Formerly, the crime was called "negligent homicide by means of a motor vehicle". Now, it is simply "vehicular homicide". The deletion of the element of fault is consistent with the adoption of the DWI approach. See Final Legislative Bill Report, SB 3106, at 1 (1983) ("the term 'vehicular homicide' is more descriptive of the crime than 'negligent homicide'.").

A common criticism of the per se definitions is that they fail to recognize that some individuals may be able to drive well even while their system alcohol content exceeds the legal limits. This criticism has already been answered. See State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 751 P.2d 294 (1988); State v. Franco, 96 Wn.2d 816, 639 P.2d 1320 (1982).