People v. Schmies
California Court of Appeal
44 Cal. App. 4th 38, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 185 (1996)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
When police officer Steven Petch saw motorcyclist Claude Alex Schmies (defendant) enter a highway and accelerate to 90 miles per hour, Petch activated his overhead lights to conduct a traffic stop. Schmies initially slowed but then sped up. Petch radioed to nearby officer Christopher Homen, and the two began a vehicular pursuit of Schmies. The pursuit eventually left the highway, and Schmies blew through stop signs and red lights going up to 95 miles per hour. Petch and Homen continued the chase. Although Petch’s vehicle had overhead lights, Homan’s vehicle did not. At one intersection, a car stopped to allow Petch to pass. However, the driver, Jane Abbett, did not see Homen’s patrol car and started into the intersection. Homen was unable to stop and struck Abbett’s car, killing Abbett and injuring Homen. Schmies was subsequently arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving, among other things. Schmies argued that he was not liable for Abbett’s death or Homen’s injuries because the officers’ actions in pursuit of Schmies were a superseding intervening event that broke the chain of causation between Schmies’s conduct and the resulting harm. The jury rejected that argument and convicted Schmies on the vehicular-manslaughter and reckless-driving charges. Schmies appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sparks, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
