The Provincial Hearing of Santander has condemned to six months from prison a man who did not help a pedestrian to whom he ran over when he crossed the route illegally, according to the verdict of the jury who declared culprit to him. In its sentence, nºm. 72/2019, 11 of February, decide the suspension of the sentence with the condition of which the defendant does not return to break the law within two years.
In this way, the judge takes care of the uprising of the jury who, the being questioned about if the sentence were due to suspend, unanimously was favorable. Also the fiscal ministry and the defense informed in this sense, but not it particular accusation.
In the sentence, that already is firm, the judge of the Provincial Hearing does not impose any indemnification, since the particular accusation has reserved the right to undertake legal actions in the civil route.
The recent reform of Penal C³digo (CP) of the crimes against the road safety, that entered the past month of March in force, incorporates a new crime of flight by abandonment of the place of the accident. The pain established in article 382 twice of the CP is similar to the anticipated one in the article that punishes the omission of having of help (article 195 CP), but in the flight crime it is not required that the person who needs help is abandoned and in manifest danger and burdens.
It needed an urgent attendance
According to the story of facts that appears in the sentence and that the members of the jury considered proven, the defendant it lead a tourism when, around Navajeda, a pedestrian burst in into the road and was run over, without the defendant could avoid it.
To the conscious being that it had run over the pedestrian, whom after the upsetting saw laying in the road, it underwent a nervousness state that, nevertheless, did not affect to its capacity of reaction, it indicates the sentence.
And it continues relating how the man absented himself of the place in the vehicle without pausing to helping the pedestrian, and without verifying the state in which the same was, although he could to him have helped without risk of undergoing no type of injury or damage in his person.
The jury understood, and thus the judge in its sentence, that the man went away knowing, or being in disposition relates it at least to know, that the pedestrian could have suffered serious injuries and that an urgent attendance needed.
Minutes later, the man returned to the place accompanied from that was its head, recognizing before the policemen who went to the place after their return who he was the driver of the vehicle cause of the upsetting, which facilitated the investigation of the facts.
The pedestrian was taken in ambulance to the Hospital of Valdecilla, where that same day as a result of the serious injuries caused by the upsetting passed away.
A fortuitous accident
According to it explains the resolution, the members of the jury considered proven unanimously who the pedestrian burst in into the road of unlawful form, without, therefore, the defendant could avoid this upsetting, for that reason the accident can be described as fortuitous.
Of the same, way understood that the defendant noticed that the pedestrian was lain down in the road and in spite of it was absented.
In this point, they have not believed the exculpatory version of the defendant, who declared that when occurring account of the happened thing stopped its vehicle more ahead and called to his head to ask to him that this one warned an ambulance.
Not to give credibility to these manifestations, the jury leaned in the testimonies of the two people who, after listening to a fort impact, left the bar which minutes before the victim had gone away. They showed that they did not see anybody helping to the pedestrian nor any vehicle stopped in the zone.
The jury has not thought either that the defendant carried out a telephone call, and is that any documentary certainty of the same does not exist.
By all this, he considers the judge that the conviction of the jury to found its verdict surpasses the rationality canon widely, finding us with that the analyzed tests enjoy sufficient incriminatory content to reach the probatory conclusion at that has arrived the jury.
Insurmountable fear does not concur
The defense raised the concurrence of a circumstance exemption of insurmountable fear, but the jury, to the being questioned by the same, unanimously rejected this thesis.
In this sense, they considered proven that the defendant underwent a nervousness state that, nevertheless, did not affect to its capacity of reaction and it did not prevent him to help the run over pedestrian, understanding that he had totally conserved his faculties volitive intellects and, being conscious of his acts and maintaining complete his capacity of reaction.
In the verdict they adduced that one has not practiced proves some or medical report that state of panic credits nor justifies, and added that if had the capacity necessary to also lead after the impact had the sufficient ability of reaction to act differently to which really had as, for example, to lower of the vehicle to help to the injured one or to call to an ambulance.
On the contrary, yes the extenuating one of confession concurs. Its action, returning to the place of the facts and confessing its responsibility, considering in addition that has not identified any eyewitness of the accident, allows to conclude that the conduct of the defendant favored the penal investigation.
At the time of individualizing the pain, the judge has considered that the victim was it as a result of an accident caused fortuitously by the defendant, who this one lacks criminal records and that returned to the place of the facts to the few minutes, putting to the test itself of blood level of alcohol and other diligences for which it was required by the Civil Guard.
By all this, it imposes a punishment to him of six months of prison and it suspends the execution to him of the same with the condition of which it does not return to break the law within two years.
If you need help legal, to speak with a lawyer or any type of proceeding; our equipment is highly qualified and owns a solid legal formation in an ample range of specialties of the right to help you whatever your situation.
YOU NEED A LAWYER?
Mobile: 608 217 194/Email: email@example.com