Originally Posted by
Jaeger99
Nope. He'll claim he was drinking heavily in the 5 hours between the incident and when the police arrived at his door. If he's smart, he answered the door while taking a swig from a half empty bottle of scotch - thus rendering any BAC backtracking to the time of the collision irrelevant. G
He's cooked on failing to remain at the scene, but given that there were no witnesses to the incident, it may well be difficult to prove any other crime at all, much less second degree murder.
Leaving the scene of an injury collision where the person dies is enough for second degree murder Since a piece of his truck was at the scene there is no doubt it and since he and witnesses put him in the truck that should be a slam dunk. In addition he reportedly confessed. Assuming the Troopers properly advised him of his rights, and they very seldom screw that up, he is toast on that charge.
What may or may not have been wise in his case doesn't matter. If reports are correct his BAC can be back tracked. Small, rural communities have an amazing amount of verifiable information about people like this. That will all come to play.
My disappointment is that very seldom, in any city or state, does someone get behind the wheel impaired without someone or someones knowing about it. Way too often citizens fall down on their duty to their fellow humans in letting an impaired person drive. People driving on prescription medications, alcohol, recreational drugs all are involved, sometimes with the same person. People in that person's community know it but do nothing until a disaster occurs. Then they wring their hands and complain.
When citizens are willing to step up to the plate and prevent impaired people from doing things that can harm others most impaired driving will go away.