State v. Ogilvie
292 Ga. 6
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Og ilvie struck and killed a seven-year-old in a crosswalk while crossing; conviction for second degree vehicular homicide under OCGA §40-6-393(c) based on failure to stop under §40-6-91(a).
- Trial court refused Ogilvie’s request for an accident defense jury instruction.
- Court of Appeals held there is no criminal-intent element for strict liability traffic offenses and error to deny accident instruction.
- This Court held that traffic offenses in Chapter 6 are crimes requiring general criminal intent, not truly strict liability; accident defense may apply if evidence shows lack of voluntary act.
- Ogilvie’s defense was that another actor’s actions proximate caused the collision, a proximate cause defense, not an accident defense; proximate cause instruction proper.
- Court reversed the judgment, remanding for disposition consistent with proximate-causation analysis and clarified limits on accident instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapter 6 traffic offenses are strict liability offenses requiring no intent. | Ogilvie argued no intent element. | State asserted strict liability with no mens rea. | Not purely strict liability; general criminal intent required. |
| Whether the accident defense applies to strict liability traffic offenses. | Accident defense available when lack of voluntary act shown. | Accident defense should apply only when defendant did not voluntarily commit the act. | Accident defense may apply if evidence shows lack of voluntary act. |
| Whether proximate cause defenses should be charged where the defendant’s evidence suggests another cause. | Evidence shows child’s action proximate cause. | Proximate cause relevant to causation framing. | Proximate cause instruction appropriate; accident instruction not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogilvie v. State, 313 Ga. App. 305 (Ga. App. 2012) (court of appeals decision on accident vs proximate cause in strict liability offenses; reversed)
- Hoffer v. State, 192 Ga. App. 378 (Ga. App. 1989) (general criminal intent in traffic offenses; not require specific intent)
- Cromwell v. State, 283 Ga. 247 (Ga. 2008) (charges that criminal intent must be proved; discusses strict liability concept)
- Goethe v. State, 294 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. App. 2008) (same theme on mens rea for traffic statutes)
- Queen v. State, 189 Ga. App. 161 (Ga. App. 1988) (strict criminal liability motor vehicle statutes can be violated without mens rea)
- State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646 (Ga. 2010) (proximate causation standard in felony-murder-like statutes)
- Moore v. State, 258 Ga. App. 293 (Ga. App. 2002) (accident instruction proper in certain vehicular homicide cases)
- Morris v. State, 210 Ga. App. 617 (Ga. App. 1993) (accident defense in DUI vehicular homicide context)
- Smith v. State, 250 Ga. App. 532 (Ga. App. 2001) (accident instruction when unsupported by voluntary act)
- Sapp v. State, 179 Ga. App. 614 (Ga. App. 1986) (accident instruction in illness-based obstruction case)