It's very critical for us to try to get into ... the state of mind of the bishop at the time of the accident, because under Arizona law we must show that he either knew, or that a reasonable person under the circumstances, should have known that he hit a person.
That's why we're asking to go back and talk to the parishioners. Did he appear to be impaired? How much wine did he drink? ... That would possibly lead to other charges, if he was impaired.
Our law here in Arizona, it requires that the driver have known that he injured an individual or a reasonable person should have known that he may have hit an individual, ... And the facts and circumstances surrounding his conduct after the accident will go directly to that element of the charge.
Will not be treated any differently than anybody else.
And what we've been able to ascertain is that the bishop thought that he had hit a dog or a cat. That was his statement. However, we have additional information that shows that he didn't immediately report it to the police.
All I will say without commenting [on] the evidence is that I would not have brought charges if I did not believe there as a reasonable likelihood I could sustain this charge before a jury.
We're still in the process of doing DNA matching, ... the body made its greatest impact.
Copyright © 2024 Electric Goat Media. All Rights Reserved.