Closing arguments held for man charged in wrong-way highway collision

By Peggy Revell on March 16, 2018.

prevell@medicinehatnews.com @MHNprevell

Closing arguments took place Friday in the trial for a Cypress County man accused of driving the wrong way down the Trans-Canada Highway in 2015, causing a head-on collision that severely injured multiple people.

Defence counsel for 57-year-old Curtis Beisel argued for his client to be found not guilty on the four counts each of impaired driving causing bodily harm, exceeding .08 causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

Turning onto the Trans-Canada and going the wrong way was a “mistake that led to tragic results” Lyndon Heidinger argued, but Beisel was otherwise driving normally, and once he realized he was going the wrong way he slowed down and pulled over to be driving on the shoulder. Beisel “did what a reasonably prudent driver would do,” said Heidinger.

Heidinger said that fits with earlier testimony from the collision reconstructionist, which said Beisel could have been travelling as slow as 60 kilometers per hour, and that 75 per cent of his vehicle was on the shoulder of the road.

Heidinger also argued that testimony from a Crown expert witness — an RCMP specialist for forensic toxicology and analyzing blood alcohol levels — should be given “no weight” due to assumptions made when calculating what Beisel’s blood alcohol levels would have been at the time of the collision.

The defence’s reconstruction of what happened is “frankly speculative” said the provincial Crown, also standing by the testimony of the expert witness.

“Turning the wrong way is an inherently dangerous act” the Crown argued and turning the wrong way, missing the wrong way sign, driving past one vehicle and striking another are not just part of “momentary inattention” as defence argued.

Behaviour from the accused was also consistent with being impaired by alcohol, Crown argued. This includes the attending RCMP officer testifying to smelling alcohol on the accused’s breath, slurred speech and testimony that Beisel was yelling and swearing at the victims about having caused the collision.

Judge Eric Brooks asked defence address this discrepancy of Beisel knowing he had been going the wrong way and pulling over to the shoulder — but then minutes after the collision yelling and swearing at the victims that they were at fault.

Defence responded that Beisel could have been yelling at them for other reasons — such as that if they had swerved right as he went left the collision could have been avoided — and also questioned why this information on his actions wasn’t included in the original statements made by victims to police, and only came out during testimony.

The judge’s decision on the case is set to be heard on April 27.

13
-12