Petitt not guilty of homicide
By Bobbi Mlynar
Originally published 11:39 a.m., September 2, 2009
Updated 01:30 p.m., September 2, 2009
County Attorney Marc Goodman was not surprised this morning when a jury returned a not-guilty verdict in a vehicular homicide case in which Emporian Rachel Hall was killed.
He plans to use the case in an effort change Kansas law.
Goodman knew from the beginning that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convict Don Petitt of Ozawkie on a vehicular homicide charge because of the criteria that must be met to prove guilt.
Petitt was driving a Penny's Concrete truck south on Road U when he failed to yield the right-of-way at a stop sign. He drove onto Road 175 and collided with a westbound pickup truck in the intersection.
Hall, who was the mother of three children, died at the scene of the accident.
On Wednesday, the jury convicted Petitt of failing to yield and found him not guilty of vehicular homicide.
Testimony during the trial revealed that Petitt was driving on Road U for the first time when the accident happened. Investigators did not provide testimony about whether dust from construction traffic affected visibility or whether two front that tested as "out of service" after the crash could have affected operation of the concrete truck. Inspectors said the brake defects existed before the accident.
At issue during the trial was the requirement that the state prove Petitt drove the concrete truck in a "material deviation" from the standard of care a reasonable person would use. A material deviation could include use of alcohol or drugs, failing to heed a passenger's warning about danger ahead, or similar acts.
Chief Judge Merlin Wheeler instructed jurors that common acts, like inatatentiveness or running a stop sign, were not a material deviation.
"We knew going in this would be the hard road, so I'm not shocked. ... I had to look at it a long, long time to see if we had a theory we could proceed on," Goodman said of his office's approach to the case. "It's a terrible, terrible law."
Goodman is chairman of the legislative committee for the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association, and plans to bring the issue of vehicular homicide before the organization in late october or early November.
"I will talk tto the board about drafting legislation," Goodman said.
He expects Sedgwick County to support his proposal. Sedgwick has had several similar cases to the Hall case, with similar results.
Goodman said he had spoken with Hall's family before the trial, to talk with them about the difficulties in obtaining convictions using the current criteria to determine guilt.
"I wanted to make sure they understood that," Goodman said. "We were facing a hard fight. I like to think they understood that."
Goodman said the case was one that needed to be brought before the court.
The jury received the case Wednesday morning around 10 a.m. and returned with its verdict shortly after 11 a.m.
After court was dismissed, Don Petitt's family waited in the lobby of the courthouse for Petitt to complete paperwork at the court services office in the basement of the building.
His mother, sister, and an aunt said they had wanted an opportunity to apologize to Rachel Hall's family.
A civil suit was settled last year, and the Petitt family said they had been told they could not talk with Hall's family because of the pending criminal case.
"We've prayed for them and we feel for them, and we know that we can't even imagine what they've gone through," said Don Petitt's mother, Gayla Petitt of Ozawkie.
"We'd like them to know our prayers and thoughts are with them," Petitt's sister DeDe Taylor said.
"What we'd do in this situation, I don't know, and I hope I never find out."
Gayla Petitt said she hopes that the trial will help bring closure for the victim's family, and that her son too can find peace.
"It's preyed upon him the whole time," she said. "He's very, very sorry and you can't take it back, unfortunately."
For more, see Thursday's Gazette.
Mommy_15 (anonymous) says...
How can he be guilty of failing to YIELD at a stop sign and not of vehicular homicide??? She died as a result of him failing to yeild (which he was found guilty)and crushing her car. That makes NO sense to me!!!
September 2, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Absolute (anonymous) says...
I am sure there are specific criteria that fall under "vehicular homicide" that have to be met for the jury to find him guilty of that.
September 2, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Not paying attention doesn't count towards proving guilt, according to the article. I hope they do change that part of the law. It's too late for this case, though.
September 2, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmb232 (anonymous) says...
This law was written that way probably to keep the Ted Kennedy's out of prison. This man should have at least served some prison time for killing someone because he failed to follow the law. The company that owned the truck should also pay the family a very large sum for the support and loss of the mother of three. In my opinion this person got off way to easy. One of the redeeming factors is that the drivers family is compassionate and does feel for the victims family. A very long period of suspension of his drivers license would cause him to think about the death he caused.
September 2, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Southerngirl (anonymous) says...
Although the defendant's family feels compassion and sympathy for the Halls, that does not take away the grieving for their lost one. One family member states they hope the victims family can now have some closure. What is closure? Punishment to the one that took the life of your loved one only gives you a little bit of satisfaction. The one committing the crime will get completed with their punishment within a little while but the family is punished forever. There is never closure when you loose someone as a result of a crime that could have been prevented
September 2, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
Okay people, this is what we get when we sit back and allow the judges to "make" the law instead of doing their job and "interpreting" the law. If we continue to sit back and do nothing, their will only be laws for the few. Justice is defintely not blind any longer. NO, jmb he won't lose his license and probably wont see any jail time even though the maxmum sentence would be a slap in the face to the victim's family. What hw WILL continue to do is drive large and bigger commercial vehicles than most others on the road and have the attitude that he can talk or text on his cell phone, day dream or whatever he feels like doing rather than pay attention to driving. None of the citizens of Lyon county are safe. Anytime you are driving down a road and you think you have the right of way at an upcoming intersection of driveway....THINK AGAIN!
The trouble is that our younger and inexperienced drivers don't yet know that they should always drive defensively and be on their guard and NEVER assume or take for granted that another driver is going to do what they are supposed to do.
This case was about what a resonable and prudent person would have done in that same circumstance and I'll bet you could poll a hundred people and not one of them would say I would plow through the stop sign at 35 miles an hour and kill a 20 year old mother of 3 very young babies!
It's just DISGUSTING.
I hope judge Wheeler sleeps well tonight. Maybe he can dream up a good law for tomorrow's proceedings. Maybe it will be another one that doesn't protect the public safety and welfare.
September 2, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
I guess I wasn't quite finished with my tirade.
I feel for the law enforcement officers who are out on the front lines on a daily basis, who, in light of this and many other situations are charged with protecting and serving but really can't do much more than issue a citation or temporarily restrain a criminal if the act is egregious enough. But ultimately what they do is clean up the accident scenes and remove the victims and then go to court and get mocked. It is every man for himself literally and the citizens either need to wake up and do something about it or be prepared to take care of themselves.
September 2, 2009 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
Oh...and last but not least.
If the citizens of the 5th district vote in the next elelction to retain any or all of the current judges, then we will get what we have always had and what we deserve.
A KANGAROO COURT!
Let me provide some explanation and insight for this:
Kangaroo court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial, sometimes likened to a drumhead ... The outcome of a trial by "kangaroo court" is essentially determined in advance, ...
and...
kangaroo court - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online DictionaryMain Entry: kangaroo court; Function: noun; Date: 1853. 1 : a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted ...
and here are some "legal definitions" just in case those above didn't hit betwen the eyes yet...
kangaroo court: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article ...kangaroo court n. A mock court set up in violation of established legal procedure. A court characterized by dishonesty or.
Legal Definition of Kangaroo Court: A judicial proceeding or trial which has a predetermined outcome or where the basic legal rights of a party are jumped over.
and...
kangaroo court - Definition of kangaroo court at YourDictionary.com: an unauthorized, irregular court, usually disregarding normal legal procedure, as one in a frontier region; any tribunal in which judgment is rendered ...
and...
Well you get the point by now I hope. Please, google this term and look at the complete definitions if you need further examples.
As long as the attorneys and judges are wining and dining together, we will have nothing else. It's time to clean up the smell that Emporia is so infamous for and practice "we the people" instead of "they the priviledged".
There are good, honest and decent folks out there that can hold a position without it going to their heads or becoming a power monger or jumping into the kettle to avoid insulting or angering the pot.
Do we continue to drive our youth away to other places until we become a ghost town or do we stand up and take responsibility for what our community can become?
September 2, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
To add further insult and injury to our citizens, there is this information from the Supreme Court web site.
************************************************
Furloughs
Based on current information from the Supreme Court and pending legislative supplemental appropriations in January 2010, all Kansas District Courts, including Lyon and Chase counties, will shut down operations on the following weeks due to involuntary employee layoffs without pay:
February 15-19, 2009
March 15-19, 2009
April 5-9, 2009
May 10-14, 2009
May 24-28, 2009
June 7-11, 2009
More information regarding these closings will be available within the coming months. If you are anticipating utilizing the services of the court during or around these weeks, please plan accordingly.
************************************************
SO now, we are going to give the courts' elite 6 weeks of paid vacation? Yes I know it says "without pay" but do any of us really believe that this provision applies to the Judges and the Administrative personnel. I doubt it. I would just about bet that the "without pay" applies to the support staff that does the work without which, the courts cannot function.
Maybe Mr. Pettit would be willing to work for free one of those weeks to show his gratitude for being free and being able to be there and be a father to his children? Surely he can fetch coffee and water and ferry papers around for those who can't be bothered to do such trivial things; then maybe the courts could operate and the judges and attorneys only take five weeks vacation instead of six.
September 2, 2009 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
Yes, YY4U, you are probably right. I would much rather have a pedophile locked up than a person who has no regard for human life or any human being other than himself. The problem with your logic is that this is not an issue of prison overcrowding. If it were and that choice presented, I would rather have the pedophile locked up, but the courts don't do that either.
The issue here is that the Judge already had the case cut and dried the way he wanted it to go.
The judge thinks that precedent is the equivalent of law.
He chose the precedents that he wanted to apply in this instance whether they were applicable to this situation or not and once chosen, presented those precedents, which are essentially no more than one persons prior opinion, as if they were law.
This use of precedents is simply a way to make the Judges work easier, no decisions for which they have to be accountable for need to be made and they do not have to consider the actual law and apply it to the specific circumstances of the case before them.
It makes their job like following a conditional flow chart, if this, then that.
Much better than all that research and actually having to use logical reasoning.
The crux of this matter can be summarized as follows:
The judge ruled that it was okay for the defense to cite local residents complaints of dust in the area prior to this wreck, even though dust had nothing to do with it. BUT, would not allow the prosecution to cite local residents complaints to law enforcement, the county highway department and to Penny's concrete themselves of their cement trucks blowing that stop sign, which by the way had been going on for a very long time, does anyone remember a few years prior to this wreck when I-35 was under construction?
In my view, the fact that Pennys Concrete was advised and alerted to the problem and took absolutely no action what so ever to correct it and thereby condoned and encouraged this behavior to continue, contributed the necessary aggravating factors and circumstances that made this vehicular homicide. I don't care if you were on the job 5 days or 5 years or whehter you delivered 100 loads or were on your first load, you would have known if you were driving a pennys truck that this particular stop sign was one you could ignore.
This is a travesty of justice, but nothing more than I would expect of the Kangaroo Court that will always look out for Pennys Concrete.
Just be very careful if you are driving in the area of the Hills Pet Food plant that is under construction. Consider every intersection a 4 way stop. Better safe than sorry.
September 2, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
I applaud Mr Goodman for his intentions to address the law.
I too will be contacting legislators.
Ignorance has never been an excuse for the law and if you are too ignorant to realize you should be paying attention while driving, especially a large vehicle, then your PRIVLEDGE to drive should be revoked at the very least and you should pay for your ignorance just like many others have done.
Need I remind readers of a similar case involving the death of Jerry Williams that happened just a few months after this wreck? Hmmm, I believe that driver was convicted and was sentenced to jail.
What about the Beau Ardnt case? Although it wasn't a driving /wreck case, the accused in that instance was guilty of nothing more than ignorance and I believe he is also sitting in jail where he deserves to be.
I could go on and on with examples, but ultimately it won't make any difference. It wont bring Rachel Hall back and it won't make Mr Pettit any less ignorant and it won't fix our broken system. The only thing that could make any difference is, if something positive was to come out of this and that will require changes, many of them.
September 2, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Deepthoughts (anonymous) says...
I'm just curious whatever happened to the word 'accident'? It seems like anymore, no one can make a mistake or do something on accident without people jumping all over them and wanting to sue, etc. I realize that the pain this family feels and will continue to feel for their lost loved one is overwhelming and they probably have a lot of anger, but nothing can bring her back or ease the pain. At least he is showing remorse. At least this 'accident' was not planned - there was no malicious intent. An accident happened and unfortunately a life was lost and it is very sad. It seems some people here feel that the actions were so horrible that he should pay forever or be put in jail. Do you really think jail is going to do any good - for an accident? He's showing remorse and just like the family she left behind, he is going to have to live with this for the rest of his life too.
I just find it interesting how differently people choose to handle a tragedy caused by an accident. I am reminded of the local man hit by a car while out jogging and how completely forgiving his family was of the individual that caused it. Even though that individual (in my opinion) was much more negligent than the man in this case, he was still remorseful and they forgave him. I'm glad there are still forgiving people in the world.
September 3, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
missymae111304 (anonymous) says...
I find it abhorrent and totally negligent on the part County Atty Mrac Goodman to bring a trial to fruition solely for the purpose of putting his own name in the news. To say that he knew it would be nearly impossible to get a conviction shows that his intent to put these two families through hell was to further his name in the media. His vague comments on changing the law, (which or what law?) are proof that he was not interested in Ms. Hall's tragic accident, but in truth in furthering his own carreer. An accident is just that, an accident. I know of persons involved in the same type of accident, they were very remorseful and did not maliciously cause the harm or the death of another. Perhaps something should be said to seeing both sides of the story and showing some respect and empathy for both parties. The person or persons responsible for keeping these families in turmoil is the County Attorney trying to keep his name in the public eye to further his own goal, not necessarily the feelings of Ms. Hall's family or the family of the driver involved. Shame on you for using grieving people for your own goals.
September 3, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tosie (anonymous) says...
biggest_small_townKS - I hope you never make a careless mistake while you are alive......you are very judgemental and I am sure that this man will pay dearly by remembering this accident and the girl he harmed, as well as her family, for the rest of his life. He was a person who made a careless mistake - this was not a malicious attempt to harm/kill someone. I am sure both families are having a tough time and will continue to in the future. Now that this is over the healing can begin.
September 3, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggest_small_townKS (anonymous) says...
Tosie - who is judgemental?
I'm not judging, only stating my opinion of the facts as I know them or see them presented. There is a bit of a difference there. Unfortunately I am aware of much more facts than I want to be and that were presented to the jury in this case.
I realize that you and others cannot infer that, so my comments maybe could come off as judgemental or from left field.
Also, I really am not into the whole "name-calling when you disagree" game. I will leave that to you.
I'm shocked at those who refer to "remorse" being expressed by Mr. Pettit. Unless I seriously missed something, this guy has not ever once, not even slightly expressed remorse for this incident or any of the others on his long rap sheet history, that I am aware of. Someone please fill me in on when that happened and I will gladly retract.
His family may be remorseful as the article stated, but they are not the ones who made the conscious decision to commit a crime and in the process kill someone-THAT WAS HIM!
This guy is not one to accept responsibility or accountability for his actions, period.
If you think this incident is going to be painful for him to live with, what are you going to say to his next incident? And then the one after that and so on...
Not sure where some of the commentors get their "facts" but for the record, this was an intentional act of running a stop sign, which WAS malicious just by the very nature of the regulatory significance of the stop sign itself. The act was intentional, malicious, wreckless and displays a wanton disregard for human life (his own included).'
Deepthoughts: 'At least this 'accident' was not planned - there was no malicious intent" . Unless you are Mr. Pettit can you provide evidence or factual basis for this - or is it simply your opinion?
If you were to make a conscious decision to run a stop sign because all your co-workers, classmates, whatever- did it, then it does not constitute malicious intent or planning?
What!?
We all know the " would you jump off a cliff just because so and so did it?
Yet, so few ever learn from that analogy.
September 5, 2009 at 1:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wirewatt (Ken Bazil) says...
One thing that everyone is overlooking on this case is that the man had a CDL which is a professional drivers license. The law says he must obey all laws to keep his license, just because he knew his fellow drivers where running the stop sign doesn't mean he should. They let illegals run all over and drive and hit and run people without any problem. Why enforce one law and not the others, just get a speeding ticket and see what happens to the person involved. Take a ticket to court and find out how much time is involved to prove your innocent. When the cop's dash cam proves you didn't run the red light.
September 5, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )