## Facts

- Toby Edward Petersen drove a 1966 GMC pickup truck and encountered Richard Wille, driving a 1966 Chevrolet Nova with passenger Daniel Warren, at a gas station.
- Wille challenged Petersen to race; the vehicles engaged in a speed contest on a public street in a 35 m.p.h. residential zone, reaching speeds above 70 m.p.h.
- As the vehicles approached an intersection, Petersen decelerated and came to a complete stop; Wille continued through the intersection without slowing.
- Wille’s car collided in the intersection with a Ford truck tractor operated by Ralph Davidson, Jr., killing Warren.
- Petersen did not remain at the scene.
- Petersen was tried in a bench trial and convicted of (1) manslaughter (recklessly causing Warren’s death), (2) leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run), and (3) failure of a witness to furnish identifying information; the trial court treated Count 3 as merged into Count 2 and imposed concurrent probationary terms on the remaining counts.
- Petersen appealed the manslaughter and hit-and-run convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment for manslaughter is sufficient when it alleges the defendant “recklessly cause[d] the death of another human being” and tracks the statutory language.
2. Whether Petersen’s participation in a drag race could be found the factual and legal cause of Warren’s death when the fatal impact was caused by the other racer’s vehicle.
3. Whether manslaughter applies when the person killed was a knowing and voluntary participant in the same reckless conduct.
4. Whether Petersen could be convicted of leaving the scene under the hit-and-run statute based on his involvement in the events leading to the collision.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions for manslaughter and hit and run.
- The court held the manslaughter indictment was sufficient because it followed the statutory language defining the offense.
- The court held Petersen’s participation in the high-speed race was a factual and legal cause of Warren’s death because the collision was a foreseeable result of the jointly created danger, and the other driver’s conduct did not break the causal chain.
- The court rejected a categorical limitation on manslaughter based on the victim’s voluntary participation.
- The court upheld the hit-and-run conviction, concluding Petersen was subject to the statutory duty to remain at the scene and provide identifying information and assistance.

## Legal Principles

- A manslaughter indictment is generally sufficient if it alleges the essential element—recklessly causing the death of another human being—in the language of the governing statute.
- A participant in joint reckless conduct may be held criminally liable for a resulting death where the conduct is a substantial factor in producing the death and the intervening events are reasonably foreseeable.
- Foreseeable conduct by another participant in a joint dangerous activity may not constitute a superseding cause that relieves the defendant of criminal responsibility.
- Leaving-the-scene liability may attach to a person involved in an accident-producing sequence of events where the statute imposes a duty to remain and provide required information and assistance.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Petersen’s manslaughter and hit-and-run convictions arising from a fatal drag-racing collision, holding the manslaughter indictment adequate, finding causation satisfied based on foreseeability from joint reckless conduct, and concluding Petersen had a statutory duty to remain at the scene.


State v. Petersen, 17 Or. App. 478, 522 P.2d 912 (1974)