May 24, 2002 By Jennifer Harr 4 min read

The attorney for David Jason Long, who was sentenced earlier this week for leaving the scene of a fatal accident, filed court papers asking for a new trial or a judgement of acquittal, claiming that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional. Long, 25, of Grindstone was convicted of accidents involving death, which according to the statute means he left the scene of an accident in which someone died. Fayette County Judge Steve P. Leskinen, who presided over Long’s trial earlier this month, sentenced him to 15 to 30 months for hitting George Tringes Jr.

Long’s attorney, Martha E. Bailor, claimed that the statute under which her client was convicted is “…unconstitutional in that it requires any defendant to both render aid and to incriminate himself” in violation of both the state and federal Constitution.

Long testified that he left the scene of an accident along Route 166 last April 23, believing that he hit a trash bag and not a person. When he saw the dent in his front fender, Long testified he went back to the scene, and saw a person.

He called 911 from a nearby pay phone, but left the scene again before help arrived. Four days later, Long turned himself into police, although Daniel Bogol, a passenger in Long’s car that night, already alerted authorities that Long hit something that night.

Police later found Tringes had a blood-alcohol content of .35 percent, which trial testimony revealed would likely have left Tringes uncoordinated. Dr. Cyril H. Wecht testified that the high alcohol content could have been the reason Tringes was sitting in Long’s lane of travel.

While Long admitted to having about three beers in the several hours before the accident, he told jurors he was not intoxicated.

Long was also charged with vehicular homicide, but jurors acquitted him of that charge.

Although Long testified that he left the scene purely out of fear, and not out of guilt, jurors convicted him of accidents involving death.

In her motion, Bailor argues that Leskinen should not have given jurors instructions on “consciousness of guilt” because that instruction went against the facts of the case. The instruction essentially says that flight from the scene can be construed as evidence of guilt.

For that, she asks for a new trial.

Additionally, Bailor claims Leskinen should grant Long a new trial because, despite the conviction, Long fulfilled the constitutional part of the accidents involving death statute by rendering aid through his call to 911.

Bailor also claims that, “A literal reading of the statute forbid an individual involved in an accident causing death or injury to leave the scene, even to make a call to 911.”

In this instance, Bailor wrote that, “…the statute literally commanded Mr. Long to stay by the scene, render first aid even if he had no idea how to aid and treat a trauma victim, apparently in the hope that someone eventually would come by and render further assistance.”

Noting that a trauma victim’s chances for survival decrease with each passing moment, Bailor said that even leaving to call 911 could potentially result in criminal charges under the literal wording of the statute.

The statute literally reads that, “The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death of any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident ….”

At Long’s sentencing earlier this week, Leskinen allowed him to remain free on his $10,000 bond pending the outcome of Bailor’s appeal.

Long’s conviction for accidents involving death had a minimum sentence of one to two years attached. At sentencing, Leskinen said he felt that one year minimum was not appropriate because Long waited four days to turn himself in after he knew that Tringes died.