271 So. 3d 733
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Around 3–4 a.m. on Nov. 14, 2014, Kaleigh Dartez was found at the scene of a single-vehicle crash; her passenger, Zackary Whitfield, was killed. Dartez smelled of alcohol, had facial injuries, and told first responders she had been driving and had drunk six beers.
- Dartez’s blood drawn ~3 hours after the crash showed a BAC of .219%. No controlled substances were detected. DNA evidence from the vehicle implicated both occupants.
- Accident-reconstruction testimony established the vehicle crossed the center line, overcorrected, left the road, hit a ditch, flipped, and ejected the passenger; the reconstructionist could not definitively identify the precise causal act (e.g., speed or mechanical failure).
- Dartez was indicted on two alternative counts of aggravated DUI: (Count I) DUI while under the influence; (Count II) per se DUI (BAC ≥ .08) — the indictment alleged she “in a negligent manner cause[d]” Whitfield’s death; the jury convicted on Count II.
- Trial court sentenced Dartez to 25 years (12 suspended), with 13 years to serve and 5 years reporting probation. Dartez appealed raising defects in the indictment, jury instructions, weight/sufficiency of the evidence, and a statutory-subsection citation error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment was defective for not alleging a specific negligent act | Dartez: indictment failed to give constitutionally required notice because it did not identify a specific negligent act causing death | State: indictment tracked statute and alleged essential elements; discovery and trial put defense on notice | Procedurally barred for failure to quash; on merits, no specificity required—statute only requires death caused in a negligent manner (affirmed) |
| Whether elements instructions should identify a specific negligent act | Dartez: jury should be instructed as to a specific negligent act | State: no such requirement; general negligence suffices under law | Procedurally barred; on merits, no requirement to instruct on a specific negligent act (affirmed) |
| Whether negligence instructions (S-3, S-4) were confusing or legally incorrect | Dartez: S-4 (maintain easy and reasonable control) misstated law and conflicted with S-3 | State: S-4 is an accepted instruction; read with S-3 instructions adequately explain standard of care | No timely objection at trial; instructions read as a whole were adequate (affirmed) |
| Whether verdict was against overwhelming weight / evidence insufficient because indictment cited wrong statutory subsection | Dartez: other causes (mechanical failure, animal, oncoming traffic) not excluded; mis-citation to subsection (1)(c) required acquittal | State: reconstruction and BAC evidence supported negligence; citation error is surplusage if not prejudicial | Jury verdict not against overwhelming weight; no evidence of other causes; wrong subsection citation was harmless surplusage (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Friston v. State, 243 So. 3d 198 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (State need not prove a specific negligent act—only that death was caused in a negligent manner)
- Koch v. State, 222 So. 3d 1088 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (indictment and discovery can provide adequate notice of alleged negligence)
- Taylor v. State, 94 So. 3d 298 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (tracking statute may suffice where defendant had notice of alleged negligent acts)
- Qasoon v. State, 232 So. 3d 831 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (procedural bar on raising nonjurisdictional indictment defects on appeal)
- Lepine v. State, 10 So. 3d 927 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (same or similar negligence-control instructions held proper when read with general negligence instruction)
- Comby v. State, 901 So. 2d 1282 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (approving instruction requiring driver to maintain reasonable control)
- Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288 (Miss. 2017) (standard for overturning verdict on weight-of-evidence review)
- Culp v. State, 933 So. 2d 264 (Miss. 2005) (incorrect statutory citation in indictment is surplusage unless prejudicial)
- Dison v. State, 61 So. 3d 975 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (State not required to disprove every conceivable alternative cause)
- Andino v. State, 125 So. 3d 700 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of aggravated DUI explained)