## Facts

- Christopher Scott Conrad drove on Gayton Road in Henrico County, Virginia, fell asleep at the wheel, left the roadway, and struck and killed a jogger, Judy Dahlkemper.
- A responding officer observed Conrad appeared extremely tired with bloodshot eyes and detected a faint odor of alcohol.
- Conrad had slept about six hours the prior day, then worked, ran errands, practiced with his band, and later went to a friend’s home.
- Between late night and early morning, Conrad consumed approximately fifty ounces of beer and stayed awake watching television until shortly before driving home around 8:45 a.m.
- Conrad testified he was not sleepy when he began driving, but while driving he became “really tired” and felt himself going to sleep.
- Conrad admitted he briefly dozed multiple times, drifted four or five times, and kept driving because he was only minutes from home and did not want to stop.
- A trailing driver saw Conrad traveling at the speed limit before the vehicle suddenly veered right into a turn lane and struck the jogger, who was facing traffic near the edge of the pavement.
- There was no evidence of braking or evasive action before impact.
- After a bench trial, Conrad was convicted of involuntary manslaughter; a panel reversed for insufficient evidence, but the Court of Appeals reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Conrad continued driving after repeated dozing and recognized fatigue was sufficient to prove criminal negligence for involuntary manslaughter under Virginia law.

## Decision

- The en banc Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational fact-finder to find criminal negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court applied a deferential sufficiency standard, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and sustaining the bench verdict unless plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.
- The court distinguished a prior case where a driver fell asleep without comparable warning signs, concluding Conrad’s repeated dozing and continued driving supported criminal liability.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary manslaughter by automobile requires proof of criminal negligence, which is more than ordinary civil negligence.
- Criminal negligence consists of conduct so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show reckless disregard for human life.
- Criminal negligence is assessed objectively; the question is whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have appreciated the serious risk and whether the conduct reflected reckless or indifferent disregard for others.
- A fact-finder may infer criminal negligence from circumstances showing the defendant perceived, or reasonably should have perceived, the danger yet persisted in the hazardous conduct.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Conrad’s involuntary manslaughter conviction because his acknowledged fatigue, repeated dozing and drifting, and decision to keep driving despite recognized risk provided sufficient evidence of objectively measured criminal negligence amounting to reckless disregard for human life.


Conrad v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 113, 521 S.E.2d 321 (Va. Ct. App. 1999) (en banc)