I've returned home to California, and have had some time to reflect on the criminal prosecution process, which offered some answers, but left me with some questions, as well.
One question is why and how the driver was released without bail the night of the incidence. He refused to take a breath analyzer test at the site, then was taken to a hospital for urine and blood test, latter of which required an order from a judge. It was at the time unambiguous that the driver was severely impaired, then showing 0.214g/dl, nearly three times the legal limit, many hours after the incidence. It would be easy to speculate that the alcohol level at the time of incidence was much higher, meaning the driver had had more than 10 drinks.
It was not until August 5, 2020, more than two months after the incidence, when he was finally arraigned. Then, he was again set free again, though a warrant was issued then executed on August 9, 2020. He posted a bail on September 16, and was finally equipped with an alcohol detector (SCRAM) and was released.
During the plea hearing, the driver stated that the sobriety date was "8/7" meaning the drive continued to consume alcohol after being arraigned and pleaded not guilty on August 5, 2020. While it is unknown whether the driver continued to operate a motor vehicle, he remained freely intoxicated, and someone continued to serve him alcohol.
So for more than 2 months after the incidence, the legal system allowed him to continue to consume alcohol, endangering himself and others in the society at large.
Prior to the plea hearing, the defense and the prosecutor agreed on a plea agreement, with the defense agreeing to plead guilty to two charges: aggravated vehicular homicide (second degree felony) and OVI (aka DUI outside Ohio, fourth degree felony), to serve 6 years and 30 months for each of the charges respectively, suspended for 30 days to "adjust the medications."
It was a shock to the defendant that the judge sentenced the defendant to an "indefinite term" of 9 years and 8 months minimum, to 11 years and 8 months maximum, with a mandatory term of 7 years and 8 months, to begin serving immediately. The judge had quite a few words to say about the defendant's prior criminal records and alcoholism. In addition, the driver was given a lifetime suspension from operating a motor vehicle nationwide, and a modest mandatory fine of $1,350.
The penalty was at or near the maximum within the sentencing guideline. Section 2929.14 (2)(a) of the Revised Code specifies a minimum sentence of between 2 and 8 years for the felony of the second degree, and between 6 to 18 months for the felony of the fourth degree. With an additional 60 day mandatory term for the OVI charge, the judge thus appears to have arrived at the minimum of 9 years and 8 months. It is not clear to me how the maximum sentence was determined. Section 2929.144 says "the maximum term shall be equal to the total of those terms so added by the court plus fifty percent of the longest minimum term or definite term for the most serious felony being sentenced."
Another question I have is how and why the sentencing guideline for aggravated vehicular homicide compares with other forms of homicide or murder. The vehicle was weaponized, just as many items in our daily lives can easily be weaponized. The incidence was completely preventable and predictable. Someone who drops rocks from an overpass onto the traffic below would eventually hurt someone. Someone who throws lit cigarettes onto a grassy area will eventually start a fire (sorry, it's not a Jewish space laser.) And someone who drinks and drives regularly will eventually cause a collision, just as someone shooting bullets randomly at buildings may eventually result in a serious harm.
Murder is defined in Section 2903.02. To be charged with murder, it must be a homicide on purpose (2903.02 (A)) or as a proximate result of another felony of first or second degree. Since OVI charge was a felony of the fourth degree, as the driver's prior convictions were misdemeanors, the homicide charge was not a murder. A murder has more severe penalties: Section 2929.02. Why wasn't the driver's prior convictions not a felony?
Under the legal framework at present, this case doesn't rise to a level of a murder, although improper discharge of a firearm such as shooting into an occupied building itself is a second-degree felony: Section 2923.161, and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises itself may be a felony of the first degree, if the action caused serious physical harm to any person: Section 2923.162, and that means a homicide through these means would be a murder.
So, when a non-firearm object is weaponized, the homicide would be of a lesser charge it seems. Regardless of the method and the device used, the end result is the same, and it is probably far easer to weaponize an automobile than to discharge a firearm accurately. Why would a third repeat OVI conviction be a misdemeanor?
As I learn more about the legal framework, more questions will arise.
