Queeman v. State - 520 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017)

Rule:

A legally sufficient showing of criminally negligent homicide requires the State to prove that (1) the defendant's conduct caused the death of an individual; (2) the defendant ought to have been aware that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death from his conduct; and (3) his failure to perceive the risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would have exercised under like circumstances. The circumstances are viewed from the standpoint of the actor at the time that the allegedly negligent act occurred. Criminal negligence does not require proof of a defendant's subjective awareness of the risk of harm, but rather the defendant's awareness of the attendant circumstances leading to such a risk. The key to criminal negligence is not the actor's being aware of a substantial risk and disregarding it, but rather it is the failure of the actor to perceive the risk at all.

Facts:

Appellant Robert Alan Queeman was charged with criminally negligent homicide after failing to prevent his van from colliding with another vehicle, which resulted in the death of a passenger in the other vehicle. Appellant’s theory about the cause of the accident was that he accidentally struck the SUV because it suddenly slowed down to make a left turn without using its turn signal. Appellant claimed that he was driving approximately 36 to 37 miles per hour, which was within the 40 miles per-hour speed limit, at the time of the collision. Appellant maintained that, when he saw the SUV, he attempted to avoid hitting it but was unable to completely evade it. Appellant suggested that this corrective action resulted in the front-left side of his vehicle striking the right-rear side of the SUV. During trial, Trooper Welch, the person in charge of the accident investigation, testified that appellant was traveling “significantly” faster than 36 to 37 miles per hour, opining that appellant was exceeding the 40 miles-per-hour speed limit. Appellant was convicted. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the jury's verdict of guilt after finding that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. The State challenged the court of appeals’ decision. 

Issue:

Was the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support appellant’s conviction of criminally negligent homicide under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.05. According to the Court, the evidence presented at trial did not show that appellant’s failure to maintain a safe driving speed and keep a proper distance from other vehicles was a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary driver would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from appellant’s standpoint at the time of his conduct.