US: Justice was not served in bicycle death case

Posted by admin on 10/21/07 in Cyclist Incidents, Featured, Opinion Pieces/Articles

Star Gazette News: Justice was not served in bicycle death case

Witnesses’ testimony deserved greater weight than judge allowed. Basically there was no real dispute as to the actual facts in the tragic case involving the Sept. 25 conviction of Kyle S. Bradley, the driver in the hit-and-run death of Steven Bacon. Those facts as presented in court were as follows:

The two cars involved in this fatal accident were traveling at what witnesses said was a very high rate of speed.

That the two vehicles were communicating between one another via cell phone.

That they had just left a bar and restaurant.

That the defendant, while traveling at what prosecution witnesses testified was a “high rate of speed,” was passed by the other vehicle.

In the process of passing one another, the defendant’s vehicle struck an innocent bicyclist riding on the shoulder, not in the road, where he was legally travelling.

That because of this horseplay the defendant’s vehicle went at a high rate of speed onto the shoulder of the road, striking the innocent bicyclist with such force that he was dismembered.

Evidence:

The defendant testified that he “panicked” and that was the reason he ran away. Why in the world would he have panicked and run away if, as stated, the defendant at first said that he “thought he hit a deer”? This is totally inconsistent with his stated reason for “he thought he hit a deer.” One does not just panic when one hits a deer, and actually does not run away from such contact with a deer, as the defendant would stop and verify the dead deer and report same to proper authorities so he could recover the damages to his vehicle from his insurance company.

The law:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

There is absolutely no requirement that a defendant must be found to have “mens rea,” or evil intent, to be found guilty of either manslaughter in the second degree or vehicular homicide. It need be only shown that the defendant acted negligently and his reckless actions resulted in death.

What were the reckless actions taken by the defendant just prior to impact with the bicycle? From my perspective of the trial testimony, they were:

•Excessive speed.

•Horseplay between the two cars involved, causing the defendant to lose control of his vehicle and strike the decedent with such force that he was dismembered.

•The defendant knew he did not hit a deer, but a person, and ran away to avoid accountability for his reckless actions and after the fact misled authorities when he said that he “thought” he hit a deer.

Such conduct taken in the totality of all the evidence clearly constitutes at least a conviction for criminally negligent homicide and conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. It seems just like the turtle “bitch slap” case: that the public is a better judge of facts and the proper laws to be applied to the facts than the trial judge, who became a jury of one, and who in my opinion clearly did not take into account the totality of the facts in order to render a proper decision. Justice was not served in this case.

Did the judge not believe the witnesses who testified as to “high rate of speed” and the defendant’s exclamation, “Did I just hit a dude?”, and that the defendant did not want a witness riding with him to call 911? The defendant had several run-ins with the law in Pennsylvania and clearly didn’t tell the truth about “hitting a deer.” His testimony should be totally disregarded, whereas Bradley’s passenger and the driver of the other vehicle clearly had no reason to lie about the true facts regarding the actions of the defendant.

Philip C. Learned is a partner in the Learned, Reilly & Learned law firm in Elmira. Guest View offers an opportunity to comment in-depth about an interest or to address specific issues that have public impact.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment(s)

JOE dupont | Mar 9, 2009 | Reply

I have a passion for this story,and it seems that this new bill has not be given it’s full measure
of publicity as it is the first of its kind in the nation. And if it passes every state will have such a bill.
Assemblyman O’Mara should be praised..
why did PA Assembly woman Tina Pickett and Assemblyman Matt Baker write me and say that
they would not introduce such a law as Assemblyman O’Mara did? Could it be that Tina Pickett was afraid of ruffling the feathers of the father ..of Andrew Zeller.. Gerard Zeller who may run against her.
I have sent this info to Senator Gene Yaw who seems receptive..to the concept.
Others have offered to co sponsor such a bill in the PA Senate and Assembly.
But it is disgusting how Tina hid in a hole on this issue. You can just search Youtube.com
search Steven’s Law..

A02180 Summary:
BILL NO A02180

SAME AS No same as

SPONSOR O’Mara

COSPNSR

MLTSPNSR

Amd S600, V & T L

Enacts “Steven’s Law”; requires passengers of motor vehicles involved in
personal injury accidents to report such accident when the operator of
such
motor vehicle does not stop or provide information to the injured party.

A02180 Actions:
BILL NO A02180

01/15/2009 referred to transportation

A02180 Votes:

A02180 Memo:
BILL NUMBER: A2180

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in
relation to enacting “Steven’s Law” to require the reporting of
personal injury motor vehicle accidents by passengers

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : To require a passenger of a motor
vehicle involved in a personal injury accident to report the accident
when he or she knows the operator of the motor vehicle did not stop
and provide information to either the injured party and/or to a police
officer.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS : Section 1 amends section 600 of the
vehicle and traffic law to add a new subdivision 3 that provides that
a passenger, knowing or having cause to know that personal injury has
been caused to another person due to an incident involving the motor
vehicle of which they are a passenger, and where the operator of said
vehicle has not stopped an provided information to the injured party
and/or a police officer, the passenger shall report the incident as
soon as physically able to the nearest police station or judicial
officer.

Failure to do so shall constitute a class B misdemeanor and is
punishable by a fine of not less than $250 or more than $500 in
addition to any other penalties provided by law.

Section 2 provides that this act shall take effect on the first of
November after the date on which it shall have become law.

JUSTIFICATION : On March 22, 2007, 17-year old Steven Bacon was the
victim of a hit-and-run accident in the town of Ashland. His body
wasn’t discovered until the next day. The driver of the vehicle turned
himself into police the next day but only after the driver of another
vehicle – a friend of the driver – who witnessed the incident,
insisted that he turn himself in. Also in the vehicle that killed
Steven Bacon was a passenger who was also a witness to the incident.

Although no one can know for certain whether Steven Bacon would’ve
survived his injuries had his body been discovered sooner, there is no
doubt that there were people with knowledge that something horrible
had happened that night whose failure to come forward resulted in
Steven Bacon’s body laying in the culvert on the shoulder of the road
for well over 12 hours.

The driver was charged, in addition to manslaughter in the second
degree, with leaving the scene of a personal injury accident in
violation of vehicle and traffic law section 600(2). However, his
passenger was under no legal obligation to report the accident even
though he was fully aware that a body flew over the car in which he
was riding, and also aware that the driver neither stopped nor
reported the incident. This legislation creates that legal obligation
for a passenger of a vehicle to report the incident if the driver does
not.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : 2008: referred to transportation

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS : None

EFFECTIVE DATE : The first of November after the date on which it
shall have become law.