Utah Court of Appeals
Can a police officer be convicted of criminal negligence while responding to an emergency call? State v. Redding Explained
Summary
Deputy Sheriff Carla Redding was responding to a backup request when she accelerated to 70 mph in a 40 mph zone without activating emergency lights or siren. Her patrol car collided with Emily Hillam’s vehicle as Hillam made a left turn, killing one passenger. Redding was convicted of negligent homicide, negligent collision, and speeding after the trial court denied her motions for mistrial and new trial.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Redding addressed whether a police officer responding to an emergency call could be convicted of criminal negligence when driving significantly over the speed limit without activating emergency equipment.
Background and Facts
Deputy Sheriff Carla Redding was responding to a backup request at a dangerous location when she accelerated from 40 mph to approximately 70 mph without turning on her emergency lights or siren. While driving east on 5415 South at night through a residential area, Redding collided with Emily Hillam’s vehicle as Hillam made a left turn into a driveway. The collision killed one passenger and injured others. Redding was charged with negligent homicide, negligent collision, and speeding.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Redding’s conduct constituted criminal negligence under Utah Code § 76-2-103(4). Criminal negligence requires that a person “ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk” and that the failure to perceive this risk “constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise.” Redding also challenged the trial court’s denial of her motions for mistrial and new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct and jury misconduct.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished this case from State v. Larsen, where a defendant’s actions constituted only “serious mistake in judgment.” Here, Redding drove 30 mph over the speed limit at night through a residential area without emergency equipment. The court held that driving at such speeds “should have expected to encounter obstacles such as bicyclists, pedestrians, or other vehicles” and “should also have appreciated a decrease in her and others’ abilities to safely handle unexpected obstacles.” This conduct created an unjustifiable risk of death constituting a gross deviation from ordinary care standards.
The court rejected Redding’s arguments regarding prosecutorial misconduct and jury misconduct. The prosecutor’s references to Redding’s invocation of counsel were made to explain the circumstances of the investigation, not to suggest guilt. The court also applied the invited error doctrine when Redding challenged the jury’s use of a dictionary during deliberations, since defense counsel had agreed to provide the dictionary.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that law enforcement officers are not immune from criminal negligence charges when their emergency response conduct grossly deviates from ordinary care standards. The case demonstrates that driving significantly over speed limits without emergency equipment can constitute criminal negligence even when responding to legitimate emergencies. For practitioners defending similar cases, focus on distinguishing the defendant’s conduct from gross deviation standards rather than arguing justification based on emergency circumstances alone.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Redding
Citation
2007 UT App 350
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20051078-CA
Date Decided
October 25, 2007
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A police officer driving 70 mph in a 40 mph zone at night without emergency lights through a residential area acts with criminal negligence when this conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death that constitutes a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care.
Standard of Review
Broad discretion for denial of motion for new trial (reversed only if no reasonable basis for decision); Plain error review for denial of motion for mistrial (reversed only if plainly wrong such that defendant cannot be said to have had fair trial); Sufficiency of evidence reviewed viewing evidence in light most favorable to jury verdict
Practice Tip
When challenging sufficiency of evidence for criminal negligence, focus on whether the defendant’s conduct constituted a gross deviation from ordinary care standards, not merely poor judgment.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.