Child endangerment means more than driving drunk with a child in car, judge rules
Driving drunk with a child aboard does not amount to child endangerment.
A Henrico County Circuit Court judge yesterday ruled that Raleigh Thomas Campbell's night out with his 9-year-old son and Campbell's girlfriend -- including stops at two nightspots, a brief fight with a bar patron, and being surrounded by gun-wielding deputies at Short Pump Town Center -- didn't amount to a reckless disregard for his son's safety.
But Campbell, 39, who fathered the boy with a woman he was found not guilty of killing in a 2005 Chesterfield County trial, still will face jail time.
Judge Daniel T. Balfour sentenced Campbell to 12 months in jail but suspended all but one month after finding him guilty of driving under the influence yesterday.
Campbell's refusal to take a breath or blood test after police stopped him Nov. 30 will mean suspension of his driver's license for one year.
Balfour said Campbell could serve his jail time on weekends after Campbell, of the 8300 block of Fulham Court in Henrico, pleaded that he is trying to keep a business going with his girlfriend of more than two years.
"I'd appreciate anything you could do to break [the sentence] down to weekends," Campbell told the judge. "I did the best I could to protect my child that night."
In a highly publicized trial four years ago, a Chesterfield jury concluded that Campbell did not shoot to death his then-girlfriend, Carrie Ann Williams. Her body was found in a South Richmond garbage bin wrapped in plastic and with a bullet in her head in 2002.
Campbell, who has a history of drug convictions, did not take the witness stand yesterday, but defense attorney Craig Cooley argued that Campbell may have engaged in a brief fight at a Henrico bar and grill and tossed a barstool there, but his driving later was not erratic and he had only minor problems dealing with a battery of field sobriety tests.
Campbell was stopped with his son and girlfriend about 10:30 p.m. after two police cars followed him for almost two-tenths of a mile with their lights flashing and sirens blaring.
When he stopped near a movie theater at Short Pump Town Center, police approached his car with their handguns drawn.
Witnesses, including Campbell's girlfriend and business partner, said the couple and Campbell's son had been at T.G.I. Friday's in western Henrico that Sunday and then traveled to the Beach House Bar & Grille on Cox Road.
The son sat at the bar, according to witnesses, but was moved to a table as the crowd thickened, and then a fight broke out. Campbell was punched in the nose by a woman he allegedly insulted and shoved. Then he threw a barstool that landed several feet from his son, according to testimony.
Witnesses said Campbell drank two vodkas and at least four beers between 4 and 10 p.m.
Balfour said he was convinced that Campbell was intoxicated but found him not guilty of child endangerment, saying the case didn't rise to the level of recklessness demanded by state law. The judge cited cases in which actual harm occurs to a child or where conditions to which a child is subjected amount to imminent danger.
Contact Bill McKelway at (804) 649-6601 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Perhaps you are using a different search engine than I am “upit”. It’s spelled G-O-O-G-L-E. Here’s some light reading for you:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1498973.pdf
Of particular note is this case:
“‘evidence of intoxication is a factor that might bear upon proof of dangerousness or reckless driving in a given case,‘“ but “‘does not, of itself,
prove reckless driving.‘ ‘“One may be both drunk and reckless . . . [or] reckless though not drunk . . .[, or] under the influence of intoxicants and yet drive carefully.“
The issue of endangerment is addressed in this case, as well, with the note that the statute on endangerment contains “"language virtually identical to that found in the statute defining reckless driving.“
You guys can name call or make not-so-subtle allusions to me being a drunk (BTW, the 12 step in my moniker has absolutely nothing to do with AA… try the band Jawbreaker) or say I have “issues” because I present facts that you do not care to consider, or you can have a civil argument based on the law. I’m starting to think that you all are incapable of the latter.
Care to respond without childish insults?
Well then lets leave it at this. Why would a competent judge say he was “convinced he was intoxicated” and not believe “that” in itself was not enough to convict of endangerment? DUI is endangerment as written by Va. law. Go google that one 12 step and good luck with your step program. You and the judge need more education.
imminent: close in time; about to occur.. yes, we’re on the same page about the definition, but you’re a little cloudy on the legal application
There, in this case, was simply not enough evidence to prove that the harm would causally follow from the events as they occurred as illustrated by the evidence. If there was, I’m sure the judge would have found him guilty. I very seriously doubt that the judge was trying to give this guy a break. He ruled on the law and the facts, as a judge should. Emotion has no place in a legal ruling, a concept that some have a hard time wrapping their minds around. You don’t like the law as it’s written? Take it up with the General Assembly.
Very good 12 step. Maybe you should tell “your judges” to learn the law and not use their emotions to aquit.
While you are at it teach them the definition of imminent which is a word that is not hard to interpret.
“This judge is a disgrace to Henrico and any court room. Does anyone think the judge would change his damn mind if one of his family members was killed by a drunk driver?“
Actually, I would hope he would rule the same. You see, I want my judges to make their rulings BASED ON THE LAW AND ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT, not their emotions. You know, that whole thing about justice being blind and whatnot…
“I can name a few cases in the past year or two where Henrico has let these drunk drivers off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. Way to go Balfour, indeed!!!“
No, you can’t. Judges do not have much discretion in sentencing in DUI cases. Any DUI case results in a mandatory 1 year suspension of driving privileges and VASAP classes ($300). In addition, if someone is above .15, there is automatic jailtime (once again, not up to a judges discretion) and installation of an ignition lock on your car. After they are done with their court mandated punishment, the guilty party must pay SR22 penalties for years to come. Once again, a judge has no discretion in reducing these sentences. The only thing they can do is increase them. Subsequent offenses result in longer state mandated sentences.
I’ve known enough people who have gotten DUIs over the years and their punishments were harsh enough, even at the minimum, to effectively deter me from driving if I’ve had any more than one drink. I’d hardly call them a slap on the wrist.
How silly is it that people’s comments get deleted for no real reason. Speak your mind!!! That’s the only way things will get changed!!!!
Lazy rebel, NO one said he would intentionally hurt his son. However alcohols first thing to take away is your ability to think straight. So tell me how much you had to drink before posting your comment.
Finally a judge with a pair! This guy has some problems, but I doubt that he would hurt his son. All you liberals out there sorry!
To the other poster keep sending your thoughts. They cant delete it all day! You were right on!
To Judge Balfour, DEFINITION OF IMMINENT- AS IN IMMINENT DANGER- ABOUT TO HAPPEN, SOON TO OCCUR, ON THE HORIZON OF OCCURRENCE. Oh thats right, you dont think that a drunk driver could create IMMINENT danger! A little more education for you….if you hurt or kill the child it is not IMMINENT at that point! It is DONE!
Advertisement