In the wake of her decision to not press charges against Errol Maul for a March 7 crash which resulted in the death of Cindy Combs, Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz responded to questions by email.
Smile Politely: What specifically prevented this case from being considered a felony? My understanding is that the three things were 1) time and place (i.e., there aren’t a lot of travelers on this road so he didn’t expect anyone else to be there), 2) impairment, and 3) driver’s record.
Julia Rietz: Simply put, there was no evidence to support a charge of Reckless Homicide in this case. Recklessness has a specific legal definition, a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. With regard to driving, recklessness has been defined by the appellate courts as acts that fall into one of three categories: intoxication, multiple traffic violations committed at once, such as speeding and weaving through traffic and disregarding traffic lights, or it can be based on acts committed during certain times or in certain places. For example, it would not be reckless to spin your car in circles (do donuts) in an empty parking lot at 2:00 a.m. But it would be reckless to do donuts in the high school parking lot when everyone is leaving the football game. The end result of a traffic crash, no matter how tragic, does not determine whether or not the driver was acting recklessly. So here there was no evidence of any recklessness.
Smile Politely: Did you contact the Lake County State’s Attorney’s office in reviewing this case, in order to discuss parallels between this case and that office’s successful reckless homicide prosecution in 2010 of a distracted driver who killed a motorcyclist? If not, why not? My understanding is that the primary difference in the Lake County case and the Combs case is the high traffic vs. low traffic setting. Is this correct?
Julia Rietz: The Lake County case involved a driver painting her nails while driving on a busy 6 lane highway with multiple traffic lights. Painting your nails has no legitimate purpose while driving, much less during those traffic conditions.
Smile Politely: According to an attendee of the meeting held last Friday with cycling advocates, I understand that you stated that a driver in a rural setting has a lower expected level of attentiveness than in a city because in a city there are more people around and you “expect someone to have to pay attention.” Can you please clarify this point, and has this reasoning been used in other cases, by your office or anywhere else?
Julia Rietz: I do not recall saying that you can be less attentive driving in the country.
Smile Politely: Would you have prosecuted this case as a negligent homicide if such a law existed? What specifically stopped the negligent homicide bill from moving forward last time?
Julia Rietz: I can’t explain why the legislature declined to pass the negligent vehicular homicide bill. From the comments I would say that they were reluctant to criminalize negligence. The Maul case could be charged as Negligent Vehicular Homicide as we wrote the bill.
Smile Politely: Finally, the big question people keep asking is, how can any behavior that leads to a driver not seeing two cyclists, a trailer, and a flag, on a straight, flat, unobstructed roadway in daylight until after making impact with them not be considered wanton, and therefore reckless? It’s hard to understand how such an obviously avoidable crash could have occurred without reckless behavior playing a role.
Julia Rietz: You asked me how Maul could have missed seeing the Combs on that road; I can’t answer that. I can tell you that looking away while driving is not reckless, no matter how tragic the consequences.
———-
For further information about this case: