CITY OF AUBRUN V. HEDLUND 201 P.3d 315 (2009) CASE BRIEF

CITY OF AUBRUN V. HEDLUND

201 P.3d 315 (2009)

NATURE OF THE CASE: City (P) appealed a dismissal of charges against Hedlund (D) because a victim cannot be an accomplice.

FACTS: A Ford Escort smashed into a concrete pillar killing the driver and five of the six passengers. All the occupants of the car had been at a party at the apartment Hedlund (D) shared with her mother, fianc, and daughter. D was 28 at the time; the guests were between 17 and 22. A video camera was passed around to record the festivities. Most of those present, including the 17-year-old, were drinking alcohol and performing for the video camera. D's four-year-old daughter is also on camera with a lighted cigarette, dancing and performing at her mother's encouragement. D is heard asking her daughter to get the cigarettes, telling everyone to look at her daughter, and telling the girl to 'shake your moneymaker.' At one point on the video, the four-year-old turns around, pulls down her pajamas, and bares her buttocks for the camera. D's mother came home and threw the partiers out. Seven people squeezed into the two-door Ford Escort with four seat belts and the back window broken out. No one saw the collision, but the events inside the car were preserved on the video camera. D was in the front passenger seat, on her knees, facing the rear of the car, filming. The sober Jayme repeatedly screamed at Tom to slow down. Jayme wanted Tom to stop the car. D said that Tom was only being funny. Tom then declared, 'I'm going to kill us all right now.' Seconds later, everyone but D was dead. Tom put the car into a slide to scare his passengers, lost control, and hit the concrete pillar. The police determined the crash was caused by excessive speed and recklessness. Everyone but Jayme had been drinking and the driver's blood alcohol was at nearly twice the legal limit. D spent months in hospitals and rehabilitation as a result of the wreck. The City (P) charged D with DUI and reckless driving as an accomplice and with furnishing alcohol to minors. The camera was used to encourage inappropriate behavior and 'showboating,' which continued in the car because D kept filming. The case was tried to a jury. The trial judge reluctantly granted D's motion to dismiss the reckless driving and DUI charges because 'there's no way [the jury] could conclude that she was not also a victim.' P sought a writ of review to the superior court. The judge concluded that D was a victim of vehicular assault, not DUI or reckless driving. The court also rejected D's argument that continuation of the trial after the municipal court's dismissal would violate double jeopardy. D's appeal was stayed pending the lower court's proceedings. The Municipal Court trial proceeded, and the jury found D guilty of all charges except reckless driving. The Superior Court Judge Roberts reversed all of the convictions because of cumulative errors. P's appeal of that decision was consolidated with D's earlier appeal of the writ of review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the reversal of the DUI conviction, concluding D was a victim of that crime. It also held that double jeopardy barred reinstating the DUI charge after it had been dismissed and that the city's cross appeal of the trial errors was moot.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner