VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
“Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.” —Theodore Roosevelt
To the Honorable Judge Sean CoenDepartment H, 11th floor, Compton Superior CourthouseRe: LASC Case No. TA158018; People v. Kevin Chris Dahl
We, the people of Los Angeles County, wish to express our dissatisfaction with the presumed plea offering made by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office to Kevin Chris Dahl of six months incarceration in the Los Angeles County Jail, followed by 30 days of community service with CalTrans—for the killing of our 16-year old son, Aiden Tai Gossage. Although the plea of no contest and probationary period of two years is acceptable, we feel that the penalty imposed is not in the interest of the people of Los Angeles County. We offer the following reasons in support of our opinion:
As to negligence:Vehicular Manslaughter (PC 192(c)(1)) is a crime of negligence. We feel that crimes of negligence are not seen to be as serious as crimes of intent. Even though the law does not see an “intent to be negligent” as intent, we feel that such crimes of negligence are just as serious as crime of intent when the result is the death of a person. “Negligence” comes from the word “neglect,” which we feel is a volitional state of mind (i.e., when carelessness or recklessness are present). Vehicular manslaughter is a homicide by neglect—a neglect to be careful about preventing a death.
As to culpability on the part of the driver:In this case, Mr. Dahl committed two traffic violations: speeding and failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Analysis of the video recording of the incident puts Dahl’s speed at 61.97 mph (which is 21.97 mph faster than the posted speed limit and 23.97 mph faster than the 85 percentile of vehicles studied in the traffic survey). For this letter, we use the estimate of 55 mph to qualify our explanations. We understand that many would-be jurors might feel that many drivers travel at 10–15 mph over the posted speed limit, and because of that, it would be difficult to blame the driver in this case for traveling 55 mph in a 40-mph zone. However, if many people discharge a firearm into the air in celebration of New Year’s Eve or the 4th of July, should that crime of negligence (246.3 PC) be sentenced lightly because many people do it? Of course, there are many speeding drivers on the road, but they are all potentially dangerous—and even more threatening to the public than standing outside on New Year’s Eve around midnight when gunfire erupts.
Speeding may not be seen as a serious moving violation, but it has the potential to be deadly—especially when drivers speed at night, on a dark road like Los Coyotes Diagonal, affording themselves fewer seconds to look carefully for pedestrians in the crosswalk, as required by law (CVC 21950(a) and (c)).
At the speed which Mr. Dahl was driving, he afforded himself only 8 seconds to inspect the intersection for pedestrians. However, Mr. Dahl did not spend any of those 8 seconds looking at the crosswalk he was approaching. Aiden was struck while he was walking east-to-west in the crosswalk, over the west side of the right-hand southbound lane. During the 8 seconds Mr. Dahl was approaching the crosswalk (at 55 mph), Aiden was walking from the center painted median toward the west side of the right-hand lane, where he was struck—almost half the length of the crosswalk.The video that recorded Aiden’s death shows that the headlights from Mr. Dahl’s vehicle fully illuminated Aiden’s entire body before Mr. Dahl entered the intersection. If Mr. Dahl had been traveling at the speed limit of 40 mph, he would have had ample time to stop or steer toward the left-hand lane to avoid hitting Aiden. If Mr. Dahl chose to travel at the posted speed limit (40 mph) and brake his vehicle into a locked-wheel skid just before entering the intersection, he would have skidded only 40 feet, which is less than the length of the intersection. Aiden would not have been harmed. However, at the speed Mr. Dahl was driving, he skidded 130 feet. As demonstrated, speeding decreases the time a driver has to inspect for safety and lengthens the skid-to-stop distance, during which time, the driver has no control over the direction of the vehicle.
We understand that many drivers enjoy speeding to their destination and that fast driving is habitual for many drivers. We feel that drivers must take the initiative to reduce their speed at intersections so that they can look carefully (as required by CVC 21950(c)), especially at night, before they decide to accelerate up to the speed they feel will get them to their destination in good time. Where such good judgment is lacking, such negligence should be punished appropriately.
As to Mr. Dahl not seeing Aiden in the crosswalk:Would-be jurors may believe that Mr. Dahl did inspect the intersection, but just did not see Aiden—that any driver could have made that mistake. We are not convinced. At the intersection where Aiden was killed (Los Coyotes at Deborah), Los Coyotes Diagonal is fenced along both sides by neighborhood sound walls. Any pedestrians wishing to cross Los Coyotes Diagonal may only do so only at the intersection.
California Vehicle Code section 21955(a) states, “Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices . . ., pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.” Drivers traveling Los Coyotes Diagonal have nowhere else to inspect but the intersection. Mr. Dahl’s skid marks begin at a point about 35 feet south of the crosswalk. Mr. Dahl struck Aiden before the wheels of his vehicle locked, as evidenced by audio captured by a neighbor’s Ring doorbell. Traveling at 80 feet per second (55 mph), and given that the average reaction time to threats is ¾ of a second (for a sober person), Mr. Dahl would have seen and reacted to Aiden’s presence some 60 feet north of the point where Mr. Dahl’s vehicle began to skid. This places Mr. Dahl within the intersection, just 20 feet before the crosswalk! This suggests that Mr. Dahl did not spend any of the eight seconds he had to inspect the crosswalk. During those eight seconds, Aiden was walking within the crosswalk, from the center median to the western portion of the right-hand lane (where he was killed). Mr. Dahl, or any driver, should have been able to detect Aiden’s motion.
Whether the reason Mr. Dahl did not see Aiden in the crosswalk (texting on his phone, asleep or sleepy, eyes closed, adjusting the vehicle’s radio, impaired vision, distracted with tending to something in his vehicle or by something outside along the road, or fixating on the traffic light at the intersection at Willow Avenue, 1,050 feet south of Aiden), it appears that Mr. Dahl was not paying attention during the eight seconds he was approaching the intersection. This act of negligence should be punished appropriately.
Section 21950(a) of the California Vehicle Code states, “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection . . .” The code does not exempt conditions where yellow pedestrian sign lights are not flashing. Section 21950(c) states, “The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian." These two vehicle code sections are paramount for ensuring a pedestrian’s safety who has the absolute right-of-way in a crosswalk.
As to any culpability on the part of the pedestrian:Common citations of Aiden’s negligence are that he was not wearing bright clothing at night, and that he did not press the button to activate the yellow flashing LED lights of the pedestrian warning signs at the crosswalk when he entered the crosswalk.
As to not wearing bright colored clothing:Aiden was wearing black-colored clothing at the time he was killed. Would-be jurors might agree that one should not wear black- or dark-colored clothing when crossing a street. However, the color of clothing is not an issue. People do not carry and change into bright clothing when they cross the street. People do not plan their day by wearing bright clothing, in case they cross a street after dark. Vehicle head lamps are capable of illuminating a person in a crosswalk, regardless of the color of their clothes. The video recording of Aiden’s death shows that he was illuminated by Mr. Dahl’s head lamps and the overhead street lamp. Drivers need only slow down to give themselves time to inspect for pedestrians in a crosswalk; not doing so is negligent on the driver’s part and should be punished appropriately.
As to not activating the yellow flashing lights:At the time Aiden was killed, the yellow flashing pedestrian sign on the east side of the crosswalk (where Aiden entered) was seven feet away from the marked crosswalk (as can be seen on Google maps; the current position of the sign is closer, but the concrete patch indicating the former position on the date of Aiden’s death can be clearly seen).
According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (Section 4B.03, page 649; https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/mutcd11thedition.pdf the flashing yellow lights are not traffic control devices.Many people believe that the flashing yellow lights are required to be activated by the pedestrian before entering a crosswalk. In fact, no reference to these signs exists in the California Vehicle Code. The MUTCD, (ibid) page 752, Section 4S, note 03 states, “A Warning Beacon shall be used only to supplement an appropriate warning or regulatory sign or marker.” This means that flashing pedestrian signs serve to bring the drivers attention to the sign, not the pedestrian within the crosswalk. Some crosswalks have flashing lights that always flash (uncontrolled by the pedestrian), and some crosswalks have no flashing lights installed. Many drivers ignore the flashing lights, because they are not traffic control devices. One need only check with police agencies to verify that drivers traveling through a crosswalk near a school zone with flashing lights is a current traffic problem often enforced by traffic officers.
The California Driver handbook states, “Some crosswalks have flashing lights. Whether or not the lights are flashing, look for pedestrians and be prepared to stop.” (2024 version, page 41). Drivers must understand the duty to carefully inspect intersections and crosswalks and that it is a regular duty they owe each time they drive.
Aiden entered the crosswalk at a time when there was no traffic heading toward him from the North or South. The video recording of Aiden’s death shows that Mr. Dahl was the first vehicle to come upon Aiden from the North (17 seconds after Aiden began his walk); and the first vehicle from the South (the first person to come to Aiden’s rescue) came some 30 seconds after Aiden first entered the crosswalk. Aiden could clearly see that there was no northbound traffic or southbound traffic when he entered the crosswalk. Mr. Dahl was at a point approximately 1,370 feet north of where he struck Aiden; and Aiden could not have seen him at the east side of the crosswalk because of the curvature of Los Coyotes Diagonal. Mr. Dahl traveled that distance in 17 seconds. If Mr. Dahl had been traveling 40 mph, he would have traveled that 1,370 feet in 23 seconds. In 23 seconds, Aiden would have cleared the crosswalk and been alive today.
We feel that anyone, including each of us, would not be satisfied with knowing that, if they were killed by a driver while walking with the right-of-way in a crosswalk, such a driver would receive only six months incarceration in the county jail, with the likelihood being released from custody before that time.
Mr. Dahl pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter. The minimum punishment for this crime has been decided by the California legislature to be two years of incarceration in the State penitentiary. We understand that the State currently has an interest in depopulating the State penitentiaries by sentencing people in the County jail for no more than one year. For the negligent acts committed by Mr. Dahl that led to the death of our 16-year old son (Aiden Tai Gossage), a pedestrian, we feel that two years of incarceration is a punishment that honor’s the intent of the legislators. Therefore, we respectfully request that the court reject the sentence of 6 months in County jail that was proposed by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and instead, install the following sentence:
One year in the County jail with no release before nine months are served;One year of community service with CalTrans;Completion of a professional driving course to educate Mr. Dahl of the importance of safe motor vehicle operation and techniques to protect other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and other users of surface transportation (“Ten hours behind the wheel + Advanced driving” offered by TRTS; https://shop.teenroadtosafety.com/north-orange-county/#bundle-and-save) to be completed during a two-year probationary period.
California Vehicle Code section 21949 states:
“The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the policy of the State of California that safe . . . pedestrian travel . . ., whether by foot, wheelchair, walker, or stroller, be provided to the residents of the state.”“In accordance with the policy declared under subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that all levels of government in the state . . . work to provide . . . safe passage for pedestrians on and across all streets . . . and reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries.”
The Los Angeles Superior Court and Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office are levels of government that must do everything possible to ensure pedestrian safety—which include prosecution and appropriate sentencing—to send a message as to the serious duty drivers owe other users of the roadway to safeguard all lives and instill the mental attitude and driving habits that ensure the safety of others.
We, the people, respectfully ask that the court reject the plea deal and consider this opinion when determining the sentence in this case. Respectfully submitted.
