VANGUARD COURT WATCH: Fatal Crash Leads to Vehicular Homicide Charges

By Vanguard Court Watch Interns

Thursday’s trial of People v. Quinteros continued with testimonies from witnesses involved in the accident.

Witnesses included a Mr. Rivas, Guadalupe Carrere and Alfredo Ochoa. Mr. Ochoa was not involved in the accident but did film the aftermath on his cell phone. His video of the event displays smoke, fire, and emergency personnel.

Both Rivas and Carrere described a similar sequence of events on the day of the accident, August 8 2011.

Both the witnesses, driving in separate cars with their respective family members, were driving back from Oregon. They were driving on I-5 where the accident occurred. Both witnesses stated they saw construction signs. Ms. Carrere even said she saw a sign that said slow down or be prepared to stop or “something to that effect.”

Furthermore, both witnesses’ vehicles slowed down when they noticed surrounding traffic slow down. They sped up again once traffic cleared. Both witnesses described traffic as not heavy or light.

Lastly, both witnesses recall slamming on their brakes because they noticed the vehicles in front of their respective cars also suddenly stop. What followed next was a terrifying and agonizing experience for both witnesses.

Mr. Rivas successfully aided his family in evacuating their vehicle. His wife did suffer burn marks as several vehicles caught on fire. Next Rivas noticed a driver stuck in a box truck. The box truck was on its side and the defendant, Mr. Quinteros, was the one driving the box truck. Rivas testified he helped rescue the driver in the box truck.

As for Ms. Carrere, she too suffered burn marks on her arm and thigh. She underwent skin graft surgery but the marks remain on her body.

In court she described the accident her family endured. Her vehicle was hit a few times. Each time their car was hit, glass upon glass would shower Carrere’s face and body. Fortunately, her family was able to get out of their vehicle.

At some point during her testimony, Carrere broke down. Through her sobs she stated she wanted to protect her son and granddaughter, both riding in the same car as her, from the ensuing chaos. Much of her testimony was delivered in long narratives, with only one objection from the defense, when part of the testimony was at the same time as her sobbing.

Carrere’s husband was present too, and he joined Mr. Rivas in helping the defendant, stuck in the box truck.

It is clear that damages resulted from the accident. It is clear the witnesses suffered or had family members suffer pain. But what is not clear to the witnesses is the cause of the accident.

Mr. Rivas spoke to Quinteros while Quinteros was stuck in the box truck. While Rivas maintained contact with Quinteros, Quinteros never said he caused the accident. In fact, at this point, it remains uncertain if Quinteros caused the accident, given none of Thursday’s witnesses identified the cause of the accident.

Further Jury Trial of Fatal Crash

By Catherine McKnight

The jury trial of People v. Quinteros continued on Friday, January 25. The Defendant, Gubani Roderico Rosales Quinteros, is being charged with three counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. The fatal collision occurred on August 8 of 2011 – killing two adults and one small child.

The court heard from several witnesses, including California Highway Patrol officers, three witnesses involved in the collision, a deputy coroner, and another woman whom the Deputy District Attorney, Tiffany Susz, deemed as a “front of collision” witness.

It is unclear, according to all testimonies given on Friday, whether or not there was an appropriate amount of warning, through construction signs, that traffic would eventually have to come to a complete stop. Given that the accident happened almost two years ago, it is to be assumed that the witnesses’ memory of what happened is not as clear – especially since the collision itself happened within seconds.

Officer Rivera, a California Highway Patrol officer for 18 years, claimed to have spoken with the defendant at the Kaiser South hospital after the collision. Reading from the statement he took directly,  Rivera said Quinteros claimed to have been driving a Mitsubishi box truck in the number two lane when he changed into the number one lane after allegedly checking over his shoulder to make sure it was safe to do so.

Quinteros said he felt a huge impact and does not remember if he applied his brakes or not.

A 911 call was played for the jury, with transcripts provided, of a hysterical female repeatedly yelling that people are hurt and that someone’s little girl is stuck inside a burning vehicle. The screaming got louder, to the point where it is unrecognizable what the female is trying to say. Needless to say, the jurors seemed rather uneasy.

During another witness testimony, Deputy Coroner Laurel Weeks explained her duty on the day of August 8. She claimed to have had experience in investigations where there are bodies burned by fire and she proceeded to give a grim description of the deceased bodies at the scene.

She first noticed a deceased body in an Acura that was located in the median of I-5. The other scene, in the southbound lane, consisted of two SUV-type vehicles and the box truck. The other two deceased bodies were discovered in a Chevy Tahoe. Photographs of the deceased bodies were not submitted into evidence for this case, given the inevitable intense emotional response they would have invoked in the jurors.

On direct examination, Ms. Susz questioned her about the physical appearance of the bodies. The detail that Weeks provided was hard to accept. She said that the child’s body was charred and blackened; her skull was visible with almost no remaining tissue; she sustained fractured legs and arms; and most of her toes and fingers were not present. When recounting the appearance of the two adults, a married couple, it was much the same. Weeks noted that the couple is survived by their son.

Autopsies performed to determine the cause of death confirmed that the primary cause was the impact of the vehicle collision. However, there was a secondary cause of CO2 intoxication in the child, but it was not at a fatal level.

All three witnesses whose testimonies were heard were all passengers of the same van involved in the collision. They all claimed that the van had to make a somewhat abrupt stop due to the congestion of traffic and seconds later they felt a huge impact. Nobody in the van was transported to the hospital for any injuries sustained.

To prove gross negligence, the prosecution must show that the defendant was voluntarily disregarding the safety of others on the road that day. There were many questions, during the testimony of witnesses, regarding whether or not there were construction signs present and how far ahead of where the collision occurred they were warned.

One witness, Sharon Viaerra, when asked by the DA whether or not it appeared as if the box truck had been attempting to slow down, claimed that it did not seem that way. Viaerra also said that the only signs she recalls were “Soft Shoulder” signs.

Viaerra had moved into the median when she noticed the box truck approaching at a fast rate of speed and did not believe it would be able to stop in time. She testified that the truck eventually hit the car that she was behind – a Chevy Tahoe – and that “the truck hit it like a wall and burst into flames.”

The Chevy Tahoe, as noted above, was where two out of three of the deceased bodies were eventually found at the scene.

Trial will continue on Monday morning and Judge Mock is planning a trip for the jury to take in the afternoon, to allow them to see the Mitsubishi box truck in person for better perspective.

Categories: