1999 drunk driver victim

Before they get behind the wheel again, after having had a few beers at an Outer Banks bar or restaurant, I suggest these Marylanders learn the law. The state that was first in flight nearly a century ago is hardly first in compassion.

The Melissa Marvin trial opened Monday, Jan. Tillett passed sentence. Nine men and three women deliberated only four hours Friday before finding Marvin guilty of four counts of second-degree murder and one count of "assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.

Said one Kitty Hawk lawyer: "There was such a lynch-mob mentality in that courtroom. You cannot imagine. Applying North Carolina's structured sentencing law, the judge imposed a prison term of to months for each murder count and 24 to 29 months for the assault. He chose not only to "aggravate" Marvin's sentence, punishing her again for the facts that proved her crimes, but also to run the terms consecutively.

Marvin, a waitress, student and competitive surfer who has lived on the Outer Banks for 10 years, must serve 60 years -- the combined minimum --without parole. Most locals reacted to the verdict with shock. A remorseful Marvin received a life sentence for a crime she did not "intend" -- in any sense of the word -- to commit. But, in seeking murder convictions, lead prosecutor Robert P.

Trivette clearly intended to send a "message": Drink, drive and kill in the Tar Heel State, and you will be sorry beyond measure. As sorry as I am for the heartbreaking loss that four families have suffered, I hear a different message. It's a message about justice. Or the lack thereof. North Carolina's chief district attorneys and judges, all of whom are elected -- even the seven justices on the state Supreme Court -- have allowed public outrage over drunken driving, and their desire for political popularity, to undermine the rule of law.

In grafting murder law onto DWI deaths, through slam-dunk opinions for the prosecution, the courts have made of the people they serve merciless law-and-order taskmasters. We have an eye fixed on punishment but not on prevention or rehabilitation.

Drunken drivers -- some of whom are alcoholics, as acquaintances say Marvin is -- are people we revile, not friends and neighbors we know or sick people we want to help.

North Carolina prosecutors are routinely charging drunken drivers who kill with second-degree murder, on an "implied malice" theory. Intent to kill need not be proved, and drivers need not be aware of their dangerousness. Grossly reckless conduct is sufficient for a conviction. Statewide, inventive district attorneys have obtained three verdicts of first-degree DWI murder, under the felony-murder rule: The "murder" is said to have occurred during the perpetration of an assault with a deadly weapon -- the vehicle being a deadly weapon.

Marking a national "first," the prosecutor in State vs. Jones, Vincent Rabil, sought -- but the jury did not recommend -- the death penalty.

North Carolina leads the country in DWI murder prosecutions. Not Maryland, which appears forgiving by comparison. Maryland appellate courts have ruled that not only do drunken drivers lack the "viciousness" and "willfullness" for implied malice, but state vehicular-death statutes pre-empt common-law homicide. Witnesses who saw Melissa Marvin before the fatal collision described her driving as erratic, with frequent lane-changing and excessive speed.

One woman testified that Marvin drove with her left foot up on her sport utility vehicle's dashboard. Marvin's blood alcohol level four hours after the crash tested at 0. As damning as this evidence was, however, Marvin's two previous convictions for reckless driving in and , plea-bargained reductions of DWI charges, sealed her fate. In step with a questionable practice established in other DWI-murder cases, Tillett allowed these "bad acts" as proof of malice.

Marvin's past -- and the system's failure to prevent or treat her destructiveness -- came back to haunt her. They saw drunken drivers as social drinkers and thought, "There, but for the grace of God, go I. To coax juries into getting tougher, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted in "felony death by vehicle," defined as an unintentional death caused by a legally impaired driver.

Because felony death was punishable by about a year's imprisonment, lenient juries embraced it in lieu of involuntary manslaughter, which carried a three-year sentence. Manslaughter -- an unlawful killing without malice caused by "culpable negligence" -- had always befuddled juries: They had to judge a driver's recklessness -- Was it "gross"? Lax attitudes toward drunken drivers began to recede with the rise of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, founded in California in North Carolina initiated its own crackdown in the Safe Roads Act, which introduced a tough, five-level scheme of punishment for DWI offenders that still exists.

Then, in , the North Carolina Supreme Court summarily ruled that the recklessness of a very drunk Lance Albert Snyder, whose speeding Oldsmobile Cutlass ricocheted like a pinball on a Winston-Salem highway before he ran a red light and killed three people, could be considered malice.

He could be guilty of second-degree murder. This proved the judicial turning point. Soon, the courts would decide that driving while impaired is, ipso facto, culpable negligence. If an impaired driver kills, he's guilty of manslaughter.

No more questions asked. Then, they would rule that felony death has the same elements as manslaughter and, therefore, cannot be considered a "lesser-included offense. With felony death and manslaughter being "equal," said Trivette, "I can never imagine a situation, given DWI and a death, that I'm going to charge less than involuntary manslaughter.

From a prosecutor's point of view, it doesn't make sense to charge the less serious charge. Essentially, the courts raised the stakes. They "did away" with felony death by making involuntary manslaughter easier to prove, and they have done the same to involuntary manslaughter with easier proof of murder.

Malice can be "implied" in North Carolina when "an act which is inherently dangerous to human life is done so recklessly and wantonly as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief. While this legal gobbledygook would appear to restate the gross negligence required for involuntary manslaughter, the courts have said that a person must intend to commit an "inherently dangerous" act. They have also ruled that anyone who drinks to the point of intoxication and drives has such intent.

Never mind that thousands of North Carolinians drive each week while being "impaired," reach their destinations without harming anyone and regard themselves as in control, not dangerous. So how does one drive "recklessly" and "wantonly" and "without regard for human life"? They're impossible for people to understand," said Trivette, who stressed Marvin's "selfish attitude" and "egregious behavior. The courts have cooperated here, too, finding that a DWI-murder defendant who drives knowing that his license is permanently revoked, or who uses false license tags and lies to inspection personnel to get a sticker, has no "regard for social duty" and is "deliberately bent on mischief.

Running a red light? The same. Most important, the courts have ruled that anyone who drives drunk after previous DWI convictions manifests malice. Allowing such "priors" into evidence, despite a well-known rule designed to exclude bad acts that would unduly prejudice the jury against the defendant, is a backboard-shattering slam dunk for the prosecution.

It's just affirming them routinely. North Carolina is heading toward murder prosecutions of drunken drivers who, unlike Marvin, have no previous DWI convictions and exhibit no signs of recklessness. Soon, DWI by itself will equal second-degree murder. People need to know that this can happen to ordinary, regular people who have a couple of beers.

In October, an alleged drunken driver killed a year-old Virginia woman at the same intersection where the four white crosses serve as a poignant reminder of loss and injustice. A Kill Devil Hills woman has been charged with second-degree murder. Potential jurors might be reporting to Manteo for her trial this summer. Amid swigs of their Budweisers, Marylanders visiting our island paradise should pay attention, because "there, but for the grace of God.

A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 e 3. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 15 January by Judge Jerry R. Tillett in Dare County Superior Court.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 October Defendant appeals from her convictions of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious bodily injury. At approximately noon on 6 April , defendant Melissa Lynn Marvin went to a bar in Nags Head and consumed two margaritas without eating.

At approximately p. She consumed three shots, also without eating. The bartender warned defendant against trying to drive to Williamsburg, where she was going to a concert. Defendant decided to drive anyway. Witnesses also observed defendant's left foot on the dash. Defendant ran a red light and collided with a car in which five teenagers were traveling. Four of the teens were killed and one was seriously injured. Defendant sustained minor injuries.

Defendant was arrested and initially charged with three counts of felony death by vehicle based on impaired driving, and one count each of driving while impaired , running a red light, exceeding a safe speed and reckless driving. Defendant was indicted on four counts of second-degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. At trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts. Defendant was sentenced and now appeals.

We note at the outset that defendant raised fifteen assignments of error in the Record on Appeal. Defendant argues only seven assignments of error in her brief. Our Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that assignments of error not discussed in a party's brief are deemed abandoned.

Therefore, the additional eight assignments of error defendant failed to raise in her brief are deemed abandoned and will not be considered.

Further, defendant abandoned the second argument inher brief at oral argument, which included two assignments of error. We therefore deem these assignments of error abandoned. Defendant's remaining assignments of error are combined into two issues: 1 whether the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of evidence of defendant's prior convictions and conduct underlying those convictions; and 2 whether the defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor's arguments based on evidence not in the record or that had been excluded.

According to Faces of Drunk Driving, doctors did not expect Saburido to survive her injuries, which eventually resulted in her losing her ears, nose, lips and eyelids, as well as her fingers being amputated.

She later became the face of the Texas Department of Transportation's TxDOT campaign warning about the dangers of drunk driving, in addition to becoming a motivational speaker. She also appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show , first in to tell her story and again in while the host was recounting her most memorable guests of the past 25 years.

Her safety campaigns also ran in countries around the world, including Australia. Paying tribute, Bentley Nettles, executive director of the TABC, told the American-Statesman : "Jacqui did not let the tragic circumstances of her accident diminish her, instead using her life story as a lesson on the importance of preventing drunken driving.

We are eternally grateful for Jacqui's bravery, her compassion and her drive to help others. Although statistics are not kept locally, national figures indicate the rate of recidivism is only 5 percent for the first year after someone attends a victim impact panel.

But after that, the message apparently fades and the percentage of repeat offenders begins to rise to the typical 20 percent, said Brad Fralick, executive director of the state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. Most panelists also benefit from being able to vent about the devastation to them and their families and from the chance to help an offender reform, according to MADD.

Visor was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the crash, which also took the life of Visor's passenger, Ana Pryor, 27, a mother of three. AAIM programs open with comments by moderators such as Pat Larson, the organization's victim services director. She told a recent audience in Rolling Meadows that although they may feel victimized by their ordeal, which includes numerous court appearances, alcohol counseling, expense and humiliation, they should count themselves lucky that no one was killed when they drove drunk.

When the speakers began, tears formed in the eyes of many listeners. They heard Ruby share the pain she has suffered since her 4-year-old son, Jason, was killed in His father, with Jason on his lap, passed out behind the wheel after drinking too much and hit a pickup truck head-on. He had a crushed skull, no left eye and no nose," said Ruby, who did not reveal her last name because she still fears her ex-husband.