Speeding Virginia Felonious Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter Lawyers Hopewell City
Walter v. Commonwealth
Defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle after a fatality resulted from a two-car collision. Defendant challenged his conviction from the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell (Virginia) for involuntary manslaughter in the operation of a motor vehicle.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support that the defendant was guilty of felonious negligence?
On appeal, the court affirmed. The court found held that the driver of the other vehicle did not violate the statutory requirement to yield the right-of-way when she turned left in front of defendant’s vehicle. The court reasoned that the approaching vehicles, of which defendant’s was one, were not so close to the driver of the other car as to constitute a hazard, and defendant’s car was in the left lane behind another car, and was temporarily concealed from the other driver’s view. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that defendant was guilty of felonious negligence which was the proximate cause of the fatality. The court reasoned that defendant’s conduct in a residential subdivision constituted reckless driving so flagrant, culpable, and wanton as to show utter disregard of the safety of others under circumstances likely to cause injury.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your traffic ticket. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your traffic ticket. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your traffic ticket in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.