From a legal point of view this is a
very interesting case.
Indiana Reckless Homicide Laws
"... In general, recklessness refers to actions where a person is
aware of, but ignores, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious injury to another.
The risk must be so great and apparent that to ignore it constitutes a major shift from the standard of care a normal person would exercise under the circumstances. Recklessness can also be established if it is shown that the person
acted intentionally or knowingly. Recklessness is commonly charged for motor vehicle accidents, firearms incidents, and acts undertaken while a person is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs..."
We know the incident happened on a rural, unlit road before sunrise. The bus stop was not illuminated and was known to be at an unsafe location (apparently parents had complained about the unsafe location to the school several times in the past, but nothing was done until the accident). There is no indication Shepherd was either intoxicated or speeding (apparently she was driving a fair bit below the speed limit: 45 mph versus 55 mph, at least according to the driver behind her) or dawdling on her phone. This in itself makes this case highly unusual, since a cursory google search for reckless homicide for motor vehicle accidents shows us that intoxication, speeding or inattention is pretty much always a factor. Not so in this case though.
Driver said she didn't realize lights were bus
"... Shepherd told Jumper that she does not typically driver her husband to work, but that she had just dropped him off Tuesday morning and had three children in the back seat of the vehicle. Shepherd said she was not sure how fast she was going but that she is typically a "slow driver."
She told Jumper that she was not late for anything that morning and that she was taking her little brother to her mother's house so that he could get ready for school.
Jumper said Shepherd told her she came around the corner and saw the lights, but was not sure what they were and by the time she realized that it was a school bus the kids were right in front of her...."
The state will either A: have to prove her story isn't true and she intentionally sped past the bus or B: that she acted recklessly (and not merely negligently) by driving (at a speed below the speed limit) towards a vehicle with flashing lights she couldn't immediately identify. I don't think the state can prove A, so this means the main question in this case is the following:
If you drive on a country road you are not familiar with before sunrise during autumn at or below the speed limit and you encounter a large vehicle with flashing lights, but you can't quite identify what it is, and you try to pass said vehicle without significantly slowing down (or did she slow down? Important thing to keep an eye out for during the trial:
Shepherd's speed at the moment of impact!!!! ), are you taking a risk that is so great and apparent that to ignore it constitutes a major shift from the
standard of care a normal person would exercise under the circumstances?
Keep in mind that not every mistake or form of risk taking rises to the level of recklessness. Indeed, she could merely have been negligent, meaning that she merely failed to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. Whether the evidence in this case establishes that the deaths alleged in the indictment occurred from a mere accident, from negligent conduct or from willful and/or wanton misconduct so as to amount to recklessness, is dependent on the weight given the various aspects of the case and the evidence by the jury. Also, the fact that three children died and one was severely injured is not prima facie proof that the defendant acted recklessly. Said fact is actually not germane to the aforementioned question and should be ignored.
I shall be following this case with great interest.
Trial begins for woman accused of hitting, killing 3 children walking to their school bus
I'm still so angry about this woman's negligence, I best not post much, except to say I hope she is found guilty and gets the maximum sentence allowed by law.
She won't. I've googled a lot of cases involving reckless manslaughter in Indiana and to get the maximum there have to be
serious aggravating circumstances. Think ramming a car whilst speeding through a stop sign/red light whilst driving under influence and massively exceeding the speed limit and having multiple DUI's in the past. Heck, look at these cases:
Reckless Frankfort teen receives 6-year sentence for killing sisters
A teenager whilst speeding under influence rams a home, killing two sisters: two years in prison, two years on community correction in-home detention, followed by two years on probation.
Culver man sentenced for reckless homicide in crash involving twin brothers
A man stuffed his car full of aluminum siding and couldn't see out his right passenger window, causing a deadly crash: three years total, of which he spend 60 days in jail and the rest of the three-year sentence on home detention.
Man sentenced in fatal Indianapolis street racing crash
A man kills three people after an illegal street race goes wrong. Five years in prison, three years on home detention and six years of probation.
Man Sentenced for 2018 Speedway Crash
A man kills a mother and daughter by running the red light and going nearly 90 mph in a 40 mph zone on wet and snowy conditions. Habitual offender. Fourteen year in prison.
Scroggins gets 24 years for reckless homicide
A man kills two people and seriously injures a third while driving at 80 and 87 mph at the time of the accident. Witness accounts suggested he was driving in the wrong lane. Had several moving and DUI violations on his record and had been in two serious accidents before. 24 years in prison.
When you set those cases against the fact the defendant in this case, based on the available information on the media, was not driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, wasn't speeding and wasn't dawdling on her phone and apparently has no priors (last year there was mention of a prior, but that turned out to be a different woman with the same name) she'll get the bare minimum, even if convicted. The fact that she works at a church, is married to a pastor and is a young mother herself will help her even more during sentencing.