The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, has upheld the conviction and sentence of Scott Louis Feise, who was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) causing injury. The case stems from a 2019 head-on collision where Feise, driving under the influence of alcohol, severely injured Robert A. and Aaron D. The court rejected Feise’s arguments that the trial court erred in its sentencing and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the severity of the sentence.
The Accident and Its Aftermath
On September 25, 2019, Robert A. and Aaron D. were driving when they were struck head-on by Feise’s truck. Witnesses described Feise’s truck “zigzagging” and “overcorrecting” before the crash. Aaron D. suffered catastrophic injuries, including a shattered femur, knee, shin, and ankle; a dislocated foot; and completely torn ligaments in his right leg. The impact caused the van to go airborne and spin into a field. Testing later revealed that Feise’s blood-alcohol level was 0.221 percent, more than twice the legal limit.
The collision was brutal. Aaron D. was pinned inside the van, his leg crushed. He also suffered injuries to his chest, head, and intestines. Paramedics had to use the “Jaws of Life” to extract him from the wreckage. He underwent numerous surgeries and procedures, including the removal of a significant portion of his colon and intestines. Complications arose, including a severe infection that ultimately led to the amputation of his right leg below the knee. Aaron D. now uses a wheelchair and requires constant assistance.
The Legal Proceedings
A jury found Feise guilty of DUI causing injury and found true several enhancements, including that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on Aaron D., caused Aaron D. to become paralyzed, and caused injury to more than one victim. The trial court sentenced Feise to a total of seven years and four months in prison, including a five-year enhancement for the great bodily injury causing paralysis.
Feise’s Arguments on Appeal
Feise appealed the trial court’s decision, raising two main arguments. First, he claimed the court abused its discretion by imposing the five-year enhancement for great bodily injury causing paralysis, arguing that the three-year enhancement for great bodily injury would have been more appropriate. Second, he argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the five-year enhancement, specifically claiming that expert testimony was needed to prove Aaron D.’s paralysis and that the collision caused it.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal rejected both of Feise’s arguments and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
The Great Bodily Injury Enhancement Argument
The court addressed Feise’s argument about the sentencing enhancements by explaining that when multiple enhancements apply for causing great bodily injury to the same victim, the court must impose the greatest of those enhancements. In this case, the jury found that Feise had personally inflicted great bodily injury on Aaron D. and that he had caused paralysis. The five-year enhancement for causing paralysis was the greater of the two, so the trial court correctly applied it.
The Sufficiency of Evidence Argument
The court then addressed Feise’s claim that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Aaron D.’s paralysis. The court clarified that the statute defining paralysis doesn’t require neurological injury, and the loss of motor function, such as in this case, can be the result of damage to the muscular system. The court also stated that expert testimony isn’t always necessary to establish paralysis.
The court explained that the jury could reasonably conclude that Aaron D.’s leg amputation constituted a “major loss of motor function.” Given the severity of the injuries and the resulting amputation, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Feise’s actions caused Aaron D. to suffer paralysis.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the serious consequences of driving under the influence and the severity of the injuries inflicted in this case. The court’s thorough review of the evidence and its application of the law led to the affirmation of Feise’s conviction and sentence.