People v. decina

Case Brief

1. Harold Sowards
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
9/7/15
People v. Decina
138 N.E.2d 799 (1956)
1. Facts
 Emil Decina was charged with criminal negligence in the operation of a vehicle
resulting in death
 Convicted in trial court
 While driving runs into a group of 6 girls, kills 3 girls upon impact, 1 dies upon
arrival at the hospital and another dies 2 days later
 He crashes into a grocery store damaging property and injuring one customer
 Resists arrest
 Appeals the trial court’s decision
 Intermediate Appellate Court reversed and granted a new trial
 Highest Court reversed this decision (4-3)

2. Issue
Did Emil Decina after being knowledgeable of medical conditions take a chance by
making a conscious choice of a course of action, in disregard of the consequences that
may follow?

3. Holdings
Yes

4. Reasoning
He knew he was subject to epileptic attacks and seizures that might strike at any time
because he had a seizure a few weeks before the present incident. He also knew that a
moving vehicle uncontrolled on a public highway is highly dangerous and capable of
unrestrained destruction. He then took the chance to drive and a consequence did
occur. If this wasn’t the case, it’d be a double standard to say that alcoholics aren’t
responsible for their actions.