Kat's Garden (mod gratis)

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: DUI with death case thrown out

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shannondale, West Virginia.
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default DUI with death case thrown out

    MARTINSBURG - A Berkeley County Magistrate on Thursday dismissed a driving under the influence resulting in death charge against a woman who struck and killed a pedestrian on W.Va. 9 in December.

    The magistrate ruled there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause in the case. The ruling means the magistrate did not think the case should be presented to a grand jury.
    The ruling effectively dismisses all charges against the woman. Prosecutors say they will proceed with their efforts to indict the woman.

    The woman, Aimee R. Dugger, of Blanchard Lane, Martinsburg, who was 24-years-old at the time, was charged with driving under the influence resulting in death after the accident. Hospital records showed a blood sample drawn for her after the accident indicated her blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident was .192 - more than twice the legal limit. She told police after the accident she had only had a glass of wine with dinner.

    The accident happened on Dec. 17, 2005 at about 1:35 a.m. when Dugger was merging her black Mitsubishi Eclipse onto W.Va. 9 West after exiting Interstate 81 from the exit 16 off ramp. She then struck 65-year-old Thomas Bish who was standing in the right hand lane of the highway. By police estimates, Bish was dragged for about 121 feet, or 40 yards, on the front left side of Dugger's hood and windshield before her vehicle stopped. No skid marks were found.

    Bish died at the scene within 20 minutes after Trooper C.A. Ellwanger of the West Virginia State Police, who investigated the accident, arrived at the scene.

    "This court finds there is not probable cause for this charge to go forth," Magistrate James Humphrey said at the end of the hearing.

    Both state and defense attorneys conceded Thursday that Dugger's actual blood alcohol content (B.A.C) would have been lower because a mathematical conversion was needed, apparently due to the difference between whole blood and blood serum.

    Still Dugger's actual B.A.C. would have been at least .16, they said, which is twice the legal limit. (.08).

    Assistant Prosecutor Joshua Henline, who represented the state, said he was shocked by the judge's decision.

    "I'm basically in shock and awe. I have no clue what just happened here. How can a person blow a .19, strike someone and there is no probable cause? ... I'm just dumbfounded," Henline said.

    He said his personal opinion was that Humphrey based his decision on the fact that Bish had been known to walk in the road in the past.

    Dugger's attorney, Harley O. Wagner, thought Humphrey's decision was the right one.

    "I think it is clear that, through these proceedings, that there exists significant doubt as to Ms. Dugger causing this accident," he said. "Clearly the presiding magistrate felt there was not enough probable cause to believe that she caused this accident and the facts seem to wholly support that."

    Wagner argued during the hearing that Bish was a "street walker" who had been known to walk in the middle of the road while drunk and was jaywalking when he was struck. Individually wrapped packages of methadone were found on Bish's body after the accident, he pointed out as well.

    "He was in a place where a pedestrian had no place to be. He was standing in the middle of an interstate area," Wagoner said.

    Dugger told police she never saw Bish in the road. He was wearing a dark jacket and blue jeans at the time.

    "We've been known to stop Mr. Bish for walking in the middle of the road intoxicated," Ellwanger said on cross-examination.

    He said he had no way of determining whether Bish was just standing in the road or was actually crossing.

    "I think he was walking back from Food Lion and crossing over," Ellwanger said during testimony.

    Wagner said the crux of the case wasn't whether Dugger was intoxicated but whether she should be held responsible for the accident. He used an analogy of a legally intoxicated person sitting at stoplight being rear ended from behind by another car causing them to hit a pedestrian.

    "It's sort of like saying one plus one equals three," Wagner said.

    Henline argued that the law is clear when it states whether or not a person is legally or illegally crossing the road a driver has the duty to exercise due care while driving.

    Further he said the area where Bish was hit was well lit and the reason why Dugger was unable to see Bish was because she was intoxicated not because of the clothes Bish was wearing.

    "A life is a life regardless if the person is a so called street walker...regardless if a person walks the street drunk. He still had a life, a life worth living," Henline said.

    Henline said the state would push forward with the case adding that the prosecutor's office is committed to defending the lives of others regardless of a person's background.

    "The state will definitely be pressing forward with this case regardless," he said

  2. Red Cabin Catering (mod gratis)
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Thanked 42 Times in 20 Posts


    Ah yes. Blame the dead victim. Defense attorneys across America must be applauding this one.
    Conservatives believe that the people are sovereign, and that the government is subject to the will of the people. Liberals believe that the government is sovereign, and that the people are subject to the will of the government.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    J. B. Farm.
    Thanked 1,339 Times in 735 Posts
    Blog Entries


    "Defense attorneys across America must be applauding this one."

    That's just crazy talk!

    Crazy talk too from the idiot Magistrate who decided probable cause didn't exist because in his opinion the guy deserved to get smashed by a car because he was known to drink and walk.
    I know up on the top you are seeing great sights, but down at the bottom we, too, should have rights. "Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories" by Dr. Seuss

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Pokacousin County, WV
    Thanked 531 Times in 316 Posts
    Blog Entries


    OK. I agree with you, Katherine. The defense attorney comment was just provocative...

    This leads me to one interesting question, and I've asked it before, and have never recieved an honest answer...

    Does the pedestrian always have the right of way? When do they, and when do they not?
    I don't like the notion that someone can walk in front of my car doing while I am traveling at highway speeds, and I go to jail because I hit the unavoidable. I understand she was drunk, but in this case, who broke the law first, during the accident? Not leading up to it, but during the 10 second timeframe that the accident occured, because there is no way to prove that she started her car before he left his home, and became publicly intoxicated... ON A HIGHWAY.

    This is one of those double-edged swords. Imagine if you were Aimee, and let's face it, twice the legal limit isn't THAT drunk. Especially if you drink alot and have a tolerance. Does she deserve to go to jail because some other drunk guy stepped in front of her car?

    I don't think anybody can win this one. Perhaps it was best for it to just go away...
    Quote Originally Posted by Kensey View Post
    Life's rough. Buy a helmet."

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Harpers Ferry, WV.
    Thanked 13 Times in 6 Posts


    This is an interesting case. First I think the driver should be charged with the DUI based on BAL, and also false statement to the police since she said she only had 1 glass of wine and that was inconsistant with the Blood alcohol limit.
    If the victim was indeed in the middle of the road (intoxicated or not), the manslaughter charge shouldn't stick. If a sober person would have hit them under the same conditions how can you be charged? Although it was apparent the reaction time was very delayed(based on hitting the person and not skidding to a stop immediately), she did not cause the person to be in the road.

    A pedestrian does not have the right of way when crossing at inappropriate areas. IF there are signs at a pedestrian crossing that says, vehicles give way to pedestrians or something like that(always at low speed areas), then yes you can be charged. I wonder what would happen in our Wal-Mart parking lot? Here people and cars are mixed together and I think it is inherent on both driver and walker to pay attention and use caution.
    I'm like a superhero with no powers or motivation.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts