Went to First Attendance - Careless driving

[HBP]

The guy told us we can plea guilty to a lesser charge (from careless driving-->failure to turn left to avoid a collision). This isn't the best option as the conviction is still in place, and I know many careless driving tickets get thrown out since they're hard to prove.

However, say that we do decide to accept the lesser charge, can we go back at any time before the trial? Can we accept it even at the trial?

Also, any advice on fighting the careless driving charge would be appreciated. The officer did not witness the accident, the cars were even moved before he came (blocking traffic flow), and he didn't take any measurements of sorts (I heard any skid marks of tires may/should be recorded).

Thanks.

[pintobean]

Hmmm...can you explain to us exactly what happened?
I will try and see if I can find any cases with similar facts scenarios, to give you an idea of what to expect at trial.

As to the charge itself, I have seen people who were charged with careless even when the cop wasn't there, and they were still convicted at trial based entirely on the evidence of the witnesses.

Finally, you don't have to accept the plea at First Attendance. If you change your mind, you can go to your trial and volunteer to plead guilty to a lesser charge when you check in. The difficulty is that the prosecutor at trial may be different than the prosecutor at FA, which means that you may not get the same offer, or they may not be as lenient. I was once in court, and a guy who had a ticket for running a red-light came in and told the prosecutor he wanted to plead guilty to "fail to obey lane markings". The prosecutor asked him where he came up with that idea, and he said that the other prosecutor had offered it at FA. He asked the guy why he didn't accept it at that time, and the guy just shrugged. The prosecutor said that a shrug wasn't a good enough reason for him, and that he felt that red-light runners needed to be taught a lesson by the courts. As a result, he refused to go with the lane markings charge, and instead offered a more serious plea (something like "fail to obey lane light"). The guy had no choice but to accept, as it was still better than the charge for running a red-light.

[ricenice]

I had the exact same charge and was offered the same. I hit a parked car about 3 mins away from my house. As i was a fairly new driver at the time, 8+ months with a G2 I took the lesser charge. About half an hour after I had agreed, a few other and I had to go in front of a justice of the peace to make a guilty plea and set payment conditions. The judge gave my 1+ years to pay a 90$ ticket lol.

Failure to turn left is 90$ and 3 demerit points I believe.
Careless driving is 2XX+ and 6 points.

This was in mississaga. Good luck.

[HBP]

Thanks, the lesser charge would be 2 demerit points and some $1xx.

The driver also hit a parked car, down the street from his house at around 130am. The car was on the other side of the road. He dozed off at the wheel, this is in the accident report, have not seen the police officers notes (disclosure) yet. It is a 1 lane each way road, without any dividing marks or lane marks (not that it matters... you should not hit cars on the other side).

The police officer said, "careless driving is the blanket charge we give in these cases, you can easily plea to a lower charge. but we have to charge you with something"

I found this case, but I am not sure if it would mean anything:

A "few seconds" of negligent driving

In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.

Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.

The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.

...

More than a momentary lapse

Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:

* The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.

* A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.

* Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.

* Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.

I have also read this:

Unlike speeding charges, for example, the burden of proof for a careless charge is quite high because it is an opinion based charge and quasi-criminal. Courts in the past, have required that the concept of "mens rea" be present. Translated, it means a guilty mind which indicates someone intended to drive carelessly. I have seen case law, from simple rear enders to motorists and pedestrians being killed. Yet the defendants were ultimately acquitted. In my cases, my clients were involved in rear enders, lane changes and in one instance, a pedestrian was struck. The deciding factor in these cases was whether the events fit the legal definition of careless driving.

Many careless charges are laid because officers are not informed on the charge itself. Also, this charge is often laid as a bargaining chip so it can be pleaded down to a lesser charge. Prosecutors can convince an uninformed defendant that they are getting a good deal because of the difficulties in proving a careless charge. This creates the illusion of a win-win scenario for everyone.

These are from ticket-fighters from Toronto, so I'm not sure how much trust should be placed on them. Any advice would be great, could we win the case like this?

Before any flaming occurs about the driver, know that several preventative measures have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again. Thanks.

[HBP]

Hmmm...can you explain to us exactly what happened?
I will try and see if I can find any cases with similar facts scenarios, to give you an idea of what to expect at trial.

As to the charge itself, I have seen people who were charged with careless even when the cop wasn't there, and they were still convicted at trial based entirely on the evidence of the witnesses.

Finally, you don't have to accept the plea at First Attendance. If you change your mind, you can go to your trial and volunteer to plead guilty to a lesser charge when you check in. The difficulty is that the prosecutor at trial may be different than the prosecutor at FA, which means that you may not get the same offer, or they may not be as lenient. I was once in court, and a guy who had a ticket for running a red-light came in and told the prosecutor he wanted to plead guilty to "fail to obey lane markings". The prosecutor asked him where he came up with that idea, and he said that the other prosecutor had offered it at FA. He asked the guy why he didn't accept it at that time, and the guy just shrugged. The prosecutor said that a shrug wasn't a good enough reason for him, and that he felt that red-light runners needed to be taught a lesson by the courts. As a result, he refused to go with the lane markings charge, and instead offered a more serious plea (something like "fail to obey lane light"). The guy had no choice but to accept, as it was still better than the charge for running a red-light.

Thanks. I don't think any witnesses will be present, there weren't any details of their contact in the accident report, perhaps he will have taken them down in his personal notes. We will have to check after we receive the court date.

[pintobean]

The driver also hit a parked car, down the street from his house at around 130am. The car was on the other side of the road. He dozed off at the wheel, this is in the accident report, have not seen the police officers notes (disclosure) yet. It is a 1 lane each way road, without any dividing marks or lane marks (not that it matters... you should not hit cars on the other side).

The police officer said, "careless driving is the blanket charge we give in these cases, you can easily plea to a lower charge. but we have to charge you with something"

Unfortunately for you, dozing off at the wheel is considered to be careless driving. This has been established by the courts and it is unlikely to be overturned (if you need proof of this, read the case that I've provided below and refer to the cases that are cited by the JP).

If the driver admitted to dozing off, and this was noted in the accident report, then there is very little that you can do now to avoid a finding of guilt at trial. Even without any witness testimony, the accident report would be sufficient to establish that the driver dozed off.

Based upon that fact alone, if you had come on here before the First Attendance meeting, I would have strongly suggested that you accept the offer of a lesser charge. As it stands now, you decided not to accept the plea, and so you have been set down for trial. When the trial date comes up, you should see if the prosecutor is willing to re-offer the lesser charge when you check in (unless, of course, there is something else that comes up that may result in an acquittal - i.e. an 11(b) motion, or cop doesn't show).

Here's a case that is almost 100% on point:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...004oncj48.html

Good luck.

[Whitedart]

The guy told us we can plea guilty to a lesser charge (from careless driving-->failure to turn left to avoid a collision). This isn't the best option as the conviction is still in place, and I know many careless driving tickets get thrown out since they're hard to prove.

Take it to trial. Hopefully, he will get convicted with the full fine and 6 demerits.

However, say that we do decide to accept the lesser charge, can we go back at any time before the trial? Can we accept it even at the trial?

That will be up to the prosecutor.

Also, any advice on fighting the careless driving charge would be appreciated. The officer did not witness the accident, the cars were even moved before he came (blocking traffic flow), and he didn't take any measurements of sorts (I heard any skid marks of tires may/should be recorded).

The driver also hit a parked car, down the street from his house at around 130am. The car was on the other side of the road. He dozed off at the wheel, this is in the accident report, have not seen the police officers notes (disclosure) yet. It is a 1 lane each way road, without any dividing marks or lane marks (not that it matters... you should not hit cars on the other side).

If the driver fell asleep at the wheel, there was likely no skid marks.

At least it did not involve any moving vehicle at an intersection or kill someone.

The police officer said, "careless driving is the blanket charge we give in these cases, you can easily plea to a lower charge. but we have to charge you with something"

That correct. It was an at fault collision, and there is no offence for "stupid driving" He should have been charged with impaired driving, if he was so tired his ability to drive was impaired enough that he fell asleep.

[iluvmikeharris]

If the driver admitted to dozing off, and this was noted in the accident report, then there is very little that you can do now to avoid a finding of guilt at trial. Even without any witness testimony, the accident report would be sufficient to establish that the driver dozed off.

File a motion to have the admission thrown out as inadmissible due to the fact that you weren't thinking straight as you had just woken up.

[HBP]

Take it to trial. Hopefully, he will get convicted with the full fine and 6 demerits.



That will be up to the prosecutor.




If the driver fell asleep at the wheel, there was likely no skid marks.

At least it did not involve any moving vehicle at an intersection or kill someone.



That correct. It was an at fault collision, and there is no offence for "stupid driving" He should have been charged with impaired driving, if he was so tired his ability to drive was impaired enough that he fell asleep.

Can never keep *******s like yourself out of these threads can you.

Thanks pintobean for the advice, I'll be sure to relay it. I don't think it's a problem, because we did not reject the offer, merely said we would like to discuss it with * and is it possible to come in later, he said sure, try to come in within the next week.

[Whitedart]

Can never keep *******s like yourself out of these threads can you..

Not in this case. I have no sympathy for the driver on this one. As I indcaited in your original thread, there is no excuse for falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a parked car. Then to come on here to have others help get the driver off the traffic charge.

If you can't accept the feedback you might receive, then do you own research, and not air your problems in a public forum.

[HBP]

Not in this case. I have no sympathy for the driver on this one. As I indcaited in your original thread, there is no excuse for falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a parked car. Then to come on here to have others help get the driver off the traffic charge.

If you can't accept the feedback you might receive, then do you own research, and not air your problems in a public forum.

editing it out: not worth it.

[Whitedart]

editing it out: not worth it.

Without being nasty...

You did indicate "several preventative measures have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again."

Because if involved a preventable collision, the Justice will question the details about the collision, and the amount of damage in either a plea or a trial.
I think the reduced charge from the prosecutor was fair - less financial penalty and less demerit points.

The collision happened, insurance company was probably already involved because of the police report and damage done to the other vehicle.
So it's time for the driver to move on with his life and get this matter settled, not for us to argue the matter in a public forum.

[pintobean]

The collision happened, insurance company was probably already involved because of the police report and damage done to the other vehicle.
So it's time for the driver to move on with his life and get this matter settled, not for us to argue the matter in a public forum.

Whitedart, with all due respect, you are the only one who is doing any arguing. If you don't like the topic or disagree with the OP's position, then follow your own advice and refrain from arguing the matter...simply hit the BACK button.

To HBP, I have looked into this matter for you a little more, and have come up with another possible way out for the driver - you could try to get the statement that was given to the cop excluded. This would only be possible under certain specific scenarios (i.e. if the cop had detained the driver in order to get the statement, and the driver was not read his rights first - the right not to incriminate oneself comes into play). Obviously in order to pursue this avenue, you would need to retain legal help and have them make the appropriate motions.

If you are able to get the statement excluded, then the prosecution will have to prove that the driver had "dozed off" without relying on the driver's admission, and without any witnesses, this would be impossible for them to do.

Good luck.

[HBP]

Whitedart, with all due respect, you are the only one who is doing any arguing. If you don't like the topic or disagree with the OP's position, then follow your own advice and refrain from arguing the matter...simply hit the BACK button.

To HBP, I have looked into this matter for you a little more, and have come up with another possible way out for the driver - you could try to get the statement that was given to the cop excluded. This would only be possible under certain specific scenarios (i.e. if the cop had detained the driver in order to get the statement, and the driver was not read his rights first - the right not to incriminate oneself comes into play). Obviously in order to pursue this avenue, you would need to retain legal help and have them make the appropriate motions.

If you are able to get the statement excluded, then the prosecution will have to prove that the driver had "dozed off" without relying on the driver's admission, and without any witnesses, this would be impossible for them to do.

Good luck.

Thanks for pursuing this case for me, I appreciate it.

I bet this option is possible, since the statement that he "dozed off" was practically baited out of him, after getting him to take the breathalyser (which obviously came out neg). Although, I'm not sure if it's worth it anymore, it seems that they have decided to take the offer and put this whole thing behind them. Insurance is probably already affected since their was an accident claim (could it get much worse? -- especially because the ticket is part of the same situation).

[pintobean]

Thanks for pursuing this case for me, I appreciate it.

I bet this option is possible, since the statement that he "dozed off" was practically baited out of him, after getting him to take the breathalyser (which obviously came out neg). Although, I'm not sure if it's worth it anymore, it seems that they have decided to take the offer and put this whole thing behind them. Insurance is probably already affected since their was an accident claim (could it get much worse? -- especially because the ticket is part of the same situation).

I understand what you're saying about the driver wanting to move on and put this incident behind him. And you're right that the driver's insurance rates are probably already negatively affected since an accident claim was made...

But...there is one big reason why you may still want to consider going to court and trying to get the statement excluded:

A traffic conviction of any kind will add another strike to the driver's insurance profile. He now has one accident on his record. If he decides not to pursue this ticket any farther, then he'll have one accident and one ticket on his record. This is going to cost him a lot more money. If he somehow ends up getting another ticket in the next three years (even for something like an improper turn or minor speeding), then that will be one accident and two tickets on his record, which will result in the driver being forced to go to Facility Insurance. That could end up tripling his current insurance rate.

Anyways, I don't want to push you to do something you're not comfortable with, but I just thought that it would be good for you to know all the possibilities too.