Reply
Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:05 pm
Everybody is excited over the religious couple that allowed their child to die. Here is another example of conviction for killing without intent.
HOUSTON " One allegedly reckless moment dramatically changed Jeri Dawn Montgomery’s life and ended someone else’s.
Jury finds woman criminally negligent in fatal car accident
October 2, 2009 View larger E-mail Clip More Video On Friday, a jury found Montgomery guilty of criminally negligent homicide.
Prosecutors say she had been on her cell phone just before she made a lane change where she struck a truck, killing 25-year-old Chance Wilcox.
“It won’t bring him back. It did justice, though,” said Butch Wilcox, the victim’s father. “People use their cell phones, not watching what they’re doing. It’s terrible it happened, but maybe this will help.”
It is legal to talk on your phone while driving in Texas, but Montgomery’s conviction is part of a get tough policy by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and HPD. They want to crack down on distracted drivers involved in accidents.
“If it results in a fatality, you’re looking at possible felony charges,” prosecutor Brent Mayr told 11 News before the case went to trial. “This is something that we are going to consider, if that person was criminally negligent or reckless in their driving.”
This doesn’t simply involve people using their cell phones while behind the wheel.
“Using a cell phone, smoking a cigarette, talking to somebody in the back seat…anything that is distracting where you're not keeping a proper outlook could be criminally negligent,” said 11 News legal expert Professor Gerald Treece.
For her negligence, Jeri Montgomery faces anywhere from two to ten years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.
“There will never be relief,” said Shelli Ralls, Wilcox’s mother. “It’s justice for my son, and it’s up to the jury to make a decision.”
That decision will likely be made on Monday, when the jury resumes deliberations in the punishment phase of Montgomery’s trial.
HOUSTON -- The woman convicted of causing a deadly wreck after talking on her cell phone says not a day goes by that she doesn’t think about the night it happened.
Woman convicted in cell phone accident speaks out
October 6, 2009 View larger E-mail Clip More Video Jeri Montgomery is serving a 30-day sentence for negligent homicide in connection with the accident, which happened in March 2008. Chance Wilcox, 25, died in the three-vehicle collision.
“I’m sorry for their loss,” Montgomery said from behind bars. “And I pray that God will heal their hurt.”
The Humble woman says she was on the phone before the accident, but not at the time of the crash. She did admit that the phone call could have contributed to the accident.
The 24-year-old did not want to comment on whether she thought her sentence was fair, but she doesn’t think she received a fair shot in the courtroom.
“I just didn’t think I was given a fair chance. The other car should have been involved because it was a three-car accident,” she said.
The third driver was never charged. Prosecutors say Montgomery swerved in front of him. The driver had no time to react. That driver pushed Montgomery’s car into Wilcox’s car.
“I believe he was speeding and he came out of nowhere,” Montgomery said. "I do believe he was part of the accident, too. Why didn’t he have to be in court? I just feel like I should have been able to present all of my exhibits like the State did.”
Prosecutors say some evidence was legally excluded from the case, because it was ruled inadmissible.
In addition to the 30-day jail sentence, Montgomery was also sentenced to 10 years probation and given a $10,000 fine. She was also ordered to make a $50 donation to Crime Stoppers.
“I’m very sorry for their loss and I never intended for this to happen,” she said. “I pray for their family all the time
@edgarblythe,
I'm predicting it won't be long before it's illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving in Texas -- or any other state, for that matter. It seems to be the direction more and more states are taking. Here in Hawaii, that law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2010. The dominoes seem to be tumbling one after another.
@Merry Andrew,
It is only illegal here when going through a school zone.
@edgarblythe,
What's with that title, Edgar (I would have named this thread "Mad Texan killer snuffs out hope with the press of a button")?
@ebrown p,
I did not want to change the subject in the other thread. But, this story examines some of the issues being discussed there.
I was going to add my opinion on this, but I'm worried that if I do, ebrown will brand me as a cell-phone bigot.
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
I'm predicting it won't be long before it's illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving in Texas -- or any other state, for that matter. It seems to be the direction more and more states are taking. Here in Hawaii, that law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2010. The dominoes seem to be tumbling one after another.
It's sure as hell illegal here....though you can do it if you have a hands free system.
The law of negligence is the law of being reasonable.
Altho it woud be egregious -- almost approaching malice -- to text, while driving,
simply speaking is universally accepted.
Arguably, dialing (pushing the numbers) might be distracting,
but speaking on the fone is not distinct in principle from conversing
with a passenger seated next to u.
WHATEVER u do,
u must be keenly aware of what 's happening on the road.
I once saw a guy reading a roadmap while driving.
David
This is an entirely different issue than the one in which e brown is busy feeling put upon. In several (and the number is growing) states, the use of a cell phone or texting (or doing anything considered not associated with driving) are becoming PRIMARY offenses. That is, a cop may stop and ticket you if you are texting or reading the newspaper (this is quite common around here , people in carpools will let the driver spread a newspaper over the steering wheel and drive--whereas I would grab the person and toss em out of the van).
USed to be that texting (etc) were SECONDARY offenses in that the driver must be associated with accomplishing a normal violation like speeding or improper turning , and the secondary offenses would just be added on the summons.
In Md , Pa, Del, NJ, its only recently become a primary offense to be without a clicked seatbelt.
The driving offense is one of a statistical eventuality, with an unsafe practice and a dangerous condition meeting together. In kicky"s thread, the eventuality was sadly predictable for the little girl when she went without any medical treatment.
IOW, you can text and get away with it until the practice causes an unexpected accident (Which may never happen), In the case of the little girl with diabetes, she was going to die without any treatment from medical science.
I only meant all the other ways of getting convicted of causing death are getting dragged into that thread. In that context, I felt this story was interesting.
@dlowan,
Quote:It's sure as hell illegal here....though you can do it if you have a hands free system.
It is alleged that this makes no difference. On that i don't have an opinion, but i have heard on the radio in discussions of this topic that hands free systems are only marginally less dangerous that talking with the phone in one's hand.
When i used my phone frequently during the day, i would record a message to the effect: "I am driving right now, and cannot take your call. Leave your name, number and a brief message and i will call you back." I started d0ing that because i considered picking up the phone to say i was driving and then tossing it back down was only slightly less dangerous than attempting to take the call.
I have been nearly wiped out on the freeway by a cell phone user. They ought to be outlawed for driving in all but dire emergencies.
@edgarblythe,
The ones who
text as they drive scare the living daylights out of me!
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Quote:It's sure as hell illegal here....though you can do it if you have a hands free system.
It is alleged that this makes no difference. On that i don't have an opinion, but i have heard on the radio in discussions of this topic that hands free systems are only marginally less dangerous that talking with the phone in one's hand.
When i used my phone frequently during the day, i would record a message to the effect: "I am driving right now, and cannot take your call. Leave your name, number and a brief message and i will call you back." I started d0ing that because i considered picking up the phone to say i was driving and then tossing it back down was only slightly less dangerous than attempting to take the call.
Be interesting to see if there are stats on hands free vs in the hand.
I guess the legislation is based on the fact that we don't try to stop people chatting to each other in the car.
Frankly, hands free or not, I'd hate to be taking work calls in the car, or calls that require a lot of concentration.
@farmerman,
Quote:
The driving offense is one of a statistical eventuality, with an unsafe practice and a dangerous condition meeting together. In kicky"s thread, the eventuality was sadly predictable for the little girl when she went without any medical treatment.
That is an awful tenuous argument. The great majority of people with these religious beliefs raise children without any problem.
The girl in kicky's thread was a just such a statistical eventuality, with an unsafe practice and a dangerous condition meeting together.
@ebrown p,
Youre being e brown again. The eventuality wasnt that the little diabetic girl would (in a statistical dice throw) contract diabetes. SHE ALREADY had the disease and was denied decent medical attention in order to satisfy some wacked out religious worldview that some guy in the sky would intervene with a miracle (They all agreed that it would take a miracle) and they proceeded with the faith heling anyway.
They get no Constitutional Pass or any excuses in my book. They are as guilty as someone who witholds medicine from uncle Jake so they can collect his insurance.
So the fact that a great many people raise kids in a faith healing environment means nothing until these kids contract a disease that is easily handled by medicine but is impossible to treat via Mooga Booga. Faith healing doesnt deny that diseases occur, It rather states that, praying and other incantations will assure a positive outcome when the sickness does hit. This is the depraved indifference I am referring.
As was said earlier, get the rest of the kids away from these "parents" so that the remaining kids dont have to suffer any similar fates should they get sick with , say, bacterial meningitis, or Lyme disease, or they get bit by some rabid animal.
@farmerman,
Quote:
As was said earlier, get the rest of the kids away from these "parents" so that the remaining kids dont have to suffer any similar fates should they get sick with , say, bacterial meningitis, or Lyme disease, or they get bit by some rabid animal.
Lot's of luck Farmerman.
Taking kids away from families based on their religion isn't going to fly in a free society.
@ebrown p,
Taking kids away from parents who act criminally irresponsible is the key .
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace