Collegian Venues - your weekend starts here
  Collegian Chronicles



Get a deal with Daily Collegian Coupon Corner
  The Digital Collegian - Published independently by students at Penn State
NEWS
[ Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2003 ]

Opposition rises about dropped DUI

Collegian Staff Writer

A decision to drop driving under the influence charges against a man who tested twice the legal limit has drawn both criticism and praise from students and officials.

Ronel Smack, a friend of the Oct. 4 shooting victim in Patton Township, drove to Mount Nittany Medical Center, formerly known as Centre Community Hospital, after he saw his friend shot and bleeding from the chest.

Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar said when Smack reached the entrance of the hospital, he was confused about which direction to go and drove into bushes before taking the victim to the emergency room.

Police arrested Smack after he agreed to take a blood test, Gricar said. His blood alcohol level was 0.178.

"I then contacted the arresting officer and [State College Police Department] Chief Tom King and spoke to them about the justification code. ... I withdrew the charges immediately," he added.

Gricar said section 503 -- the justification code -- states if someone's illegal actions were the consequence of avoiding a greater harm or evil, then those actions are justified, even if illegal.

"It's a matter of balancing that which is sought to be avoided with what is to be prevented. And if there was ever a justification, this is it. He was trying to save his friend's life," he added.

Gricar has been the district attorney for 18 years, and he said this is the first time out of about 9,000 DUI cases that he has dropped charges because of the justification provision.

State Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, said the district attorney exercised what he thought was good judgement.

"The district attorney's office is given some latitude and because of Smack, who in good faith was trying to do the right thing, [Gricar] will not waste tax payers' dollars," Benninghoff said.

Aubrey Whitten (senior-English) said Smack should still have had some type of punishment for driving under the influence.

"It's a matter of morals, but the law disregards morals, so I don't know why this case should be an exception," Whitten said.

Treva Patton (senior-finance) also said that Smack's actions were not justified.

"He was wrong for driving, because he could have easily hurt someone else," Patton said.

Benninghoff also said if Smack had in fact hurt someone else because of his intoxicated state, he is not sure Smack would still walk free of charges.

"Had someone else been hurt, I'm sure [Gricar] would have been more likely to press charges," he said.

Evelyn McKee, Mothers Against Drunk Driving state organization representative for Centre County, said although she did not know the specific details of the case, driving under the influence should be avoided no matter what.

"If he was illegally intoxicated, there would no reason to drive. Even under these circumstances, if someone was shot, call an ambulance," McKee said.

Smack was unavailable for comment.

 

Send an Opinion Letter to the Editor about this article.


   





TOP  HOME
Blogs  About  Contact Us  Back Issues  Advertising 

Copyright © 2008 Collegian Inc.
Updated: Tuesday, November 11, 2003  2:24:48 AM  -4
Requested: Monday, October 06, 2008  9:17:41 PM  -4
Created: Wednesday, May 07, 2008  6:43:50 PM  -4