|
|
« Cranston man gets 2 years in mob extortion plot | Today | Update: Man charged in case of body found at school » August 3, 2007Motorcyclist to serve 15 years for fatal crash/ Photo
Joseph Santos, of 133 Chester Ave., was convicted June 11 of driving under the influence, death resulting, and driving to endanger, death resulting. Superior Court Judge Susan E. McGuirl also fined Santos $5,000, ordered that he perform 200 hours of community service, undergo alcohol counseling and lose his driver's license for five years. Santos has been held without bail since the jury convicted him after two hours of deliberations, according to Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office. According to evidence presented during the six-day trial, Santos had a blood-alcohol content of .163, twice the legal limit, about an hour after the crash that killed passenger Susan Renaud, 37. While awaiting trial, Santos twice violated the conditions of his bail and was placed in custody, according to Healey. In August 2006, he was pulled over driving in Providence and failed a breath test measuring the alcohol in his blood, Healey said. Four months later, he was released to home confinement, but in February of 2007, a random urine screen tested positive for opiates and barbituates, Healey said. -- projo.com staff writer Kate Bramson A witness, 18-year-old Elicia Poland, testified during the trial that on Saturday, July 30, 2005, she was in a car driven by her boyfriend at around 10:20 p.m. On Route 44 in Smithfield, the couple saw a motorcycle traveling in front of them swerve dramatically as it came to a stop at a traffic light in front of Benny’s. Both the driver, later identified as Santos, and his passenger appeared drunk, Poland testified, according to Healey. Poland said her boyfriend pulled up alongside the motorcycle, and Poland called out to the driver, offering to give him and his passenger a ride home. The driver made an obscene gesture and remark and sped off, Healey said. Poland and her boyfriend followed the motorcycle along Route 44 and onto Route 295 north, where Poland testified that Santos nearly wiped out on the entrance ramp. He managed to get onto the highway and then proceed to “take off so fast that I couldn’t believe it,” she testified, Healey said. The couple tried to keep up with the motorcycle but when they reached a speed of 95 mph, they became concerned for their own safety and decided not to “risk our lives for this,” she testified. They pulled back, lost sight of the motorcycle’s taillight and then saw a large cloud of dust ahead and came upon the motorcycle tipped over in the high-speed lane, according to the evidence presented at the trial. An off-duty West Warwick firefighter, 28-year-old Arthur Houle, was at the scene when the couple stopped. Houle asked Poland and her boyfriend to help him find the people who had been on the motorcycle, Healey said. Poland testified that she found and approached Santos, whom she described as smelling of alcohol and having slurred speech. He told her he was coming from Bonnie & Clyde’s, a bar on Putnam Pike (Route 44), and he had been drinking, Healey said. The last thing Santos said to Poland, as emergency sirens approached, was, “Please don’t tell the cops I’m drunk,” Poland testified. After Poland and her boyfriend pulled back from following the motorcycle, a second witness observed the bike. Michael Levesque testified at the trial that when the motorcycle passed him on Route 295 north, his full-size Chevy pickup truck shook, Healey said. Levesque then testified that he saw the motorcycle slam into the back of an SUV and saw both the driver and passenger fly through the air. He called 911 at 10:32 p.m., Healey said. Renaud, Santos’ passenger, died six days after the crash, on Aug. 5, 2005, as a result of skull fracture and brain injuries due to blunt force trauma, Healey said. Posted by Jack Perry CommentsJames Powderly, DUI Defense Lawyer | August 3, 2007 2:50 PM link I used to love driving my bike. I feel for the man, but he had every chance to prevent this tragedy, even refused and flipped off the guy who offered to give him a ride home. I gave up riding a few years ago when the number of cars on almost all roads rivaled that of a NY rush hour. Their are no fender benders on a bike. When you get into an accident, and I use this word loosely, you get hurt. Every time I see someone riding on the hi-way, all I can do is shake my head and hope they don't become more statistics. That plus driving a bike drunk can only end up one way. Bruce | August 3, 2007 4:33 PM link maybe to keep one more apparently habitual dope user off the street? oxymoron: DUI defense lawyer. there is NO defense for DUI. joe smith | August 3, 2007 6:10 PM link Drinking and driving don't mix. Period. When are people going to get the message? Never. Media is more efficient today than in the past so these issues are immediately brought to our attention through print and digital reports. Prohibition did not work. DUI offenders who kill should be given the same time in prison as someone who kills by any other means. The deceased person's family will never be the same. 15 years in prison is not a lifetime. A person's life ended that night and the person driving the motorcycle continued to abuse intoxicating agents. No remorse there. This is not vengeance. This is logic. You kill you pay. It is about time the courts get hard on DUI drivers. Joanne Spaziano | August 3, 2007 6:20 PM link Actions and results are the only thing that matters, not intentions. He was drunk, drove, and killed someone. Those are his actions and the results of his actions, everyone is well aware that physical reactions are impared while drunk. He chose to drive, impared physically and mentally, and killed someone. He then continued to drive while drunk in 2006 and had another incident four months later. No sympathy for him. His actions have caught up with him, he now has to pay the price. John | August 3, 2007 6:52 PM link A little bit on the side of harsh, I'd say. This guy couldn't have known anybody important in R.I. or he would have got off much easier. Judge Mcgirl, how about filling the ACI up with criminals instead of sick people? This guy deserved to loose his license, do community service and maybe serve a year or so, but smarten up RI. I wouldn't live there IF YOU PAYED ME! Steve TAYLOR | August 3, 2007 7:49 PM link Unfortunately,there are many victims in this situation. The reality is that the establishment who served the alcohol to the couple were just as irresponsible.Unintended accidents are inevitable however, when somone is impaired the probability they will occur is astronomical.Just remember that driving impaired, on a phone or even eating food endangers everyone on the road.People get lucky every day. John Turner, RN | August 3, 2007 9:13 PM link maybe someday that number might drop to 1meg and a few more people might live.Maybe one of those people might be someone you love!!!!!!!!! d brooks | August 3, 2007 9:17 PM link Vengeance works for me Rick | August 3, 2007 9:20 PM link Pure luck is making it home without killing yourself or someone else. Trying to do so when you have knowingly engaged in an activity that impairs your ability to operate is criminal and should be punished. I quickly reviewed the punishment for OUI/DUI in the 6 NE states. None of them appear to have a punishment of 10 years for any quantity of convictions. So the answer to your question is no, someone should not be imprisoned for 10 years on a first offense OUI/DUI. I say 1.5M caught means the problem is huge and the current punishment an insufficent deterent. Vengence, in this case, is a word used to make consequences sound ugly. Vengence would be appropriate if those most negatively impacted by the irresponsible acts of others were allowed to cast judgment and punishment. If someone was sentenced to ten years in prison, I suspect the first-time offense of OUI/DUI described above is lacking a few details.... Alan Martin | August 3, 2007 9:27 PM link This man was reckless and a repeat offender. His thoughtless actions took the life of an innocent person. His statement: “Please don’t tell the cops I’m drunk,” only shows his lack of responsibility. He deserves this sentence. concerned citizen | August 3, 2007 9:46 PM link I think the problem is the lack of consequences given when the driver lucks out and no one is hurt. Alcoholism is a disease, no doubt, so I think a DUI should result in a residential treatment sentence long enough to get the person back to real sobriety, a minimum of six months. If someone is hurt in the accident, there there have to be punitive consequences, but, recognizing the disease aspect, I think they should be long community service after treatment. Financial consequences are a civil matter. I would treat DUIs the same, regardless of if it is a first offense or a later offense, long treatment. This would mean building or acquiring a treatment facility that was secure, but not part of a prison. There is no reason that an alcoholic's life should be endangered by putting them in a prison population. janet | August 3, 2007 10:26 PM link 6 Months should be plenty of time for drunk driving unless it resulted in death which should be tried on a case by case basis. Larry | August 3, 2007 10:51 PM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
Pure luck is the difference between a first offense DUI where you go home the next morning and one where you go to jail for 10 years. In 2005, 1.5 million people were charged with a DUI related offense. I would be interested in hearing opinions on why or why not someone should be imprisoned for 10 years for the same intended actions as 1.5 million of his fellow citizens where an unintended accident occurs? Does vengeance require such a punishment or are there other reasons one would consider such a lengthy imprisonment an appropriate sentence?