Vehicular Homicide in Louisiana (La. R.S. 14:32.1)

Vehicular homicide is Louisiana’s most severe driving‐related crime. When compared to a basic DWI or run‐of‐the‐mill accident, vehicular homicide pairs the state’s impaired‐driving statute with the horror of a fatality. As a criminal defense lawyer in Louisiana, I regularly encounter families who are perplexed regarding how alcohol or drugs play into criminal responsibility when a fatality happens on the highway. This page discusses Louisiana’s statute on vehicular homicide, dissects the components the prosecutor will need to establish, considers typical defenses, and sheds light on essential case law. My goal is to provide functional advice using simple language while remaining true to the legal subtleties. I also provide a strong FAQ and the complete statutory code for reference. If you or a loved one is charged with vehicular homicide, keep in mind that The Ambeau Law Firm offers courtroom savvy paired with extensive knowledge of forensic science to develop the best possible defense.

Overview of the Statute

La. R.S. 14:32.1 defines vehicular homicide as the killing of a human being caused proximately or directly by an offender who is operating or in actual physical control of a vehicle when the offender is impaired or has an unlawful blood‐alcohol concentration. The statute applies to cars, trucks, boats, aircraft and any other “means of conveyance.” Importantly, vehicular homicide is a strict liability crime regarding intent: the state does not need to prove that the driver intended to kill or injure anyone. Instead, the statute focuses on whether impairment was a contributing factor to the death.

The law enumerates several conditions that can trigger a charge. The most common triggers include:

• Alcohol impairment: A driver who is impaired by alcoholic beverages based on chemical tests, or whose blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is 0.08 % or higher, may be charged.
• Drug impairment: The statute reaches drivers who are impaired by any other drug or combination of drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. “Drug” is defined broadly and includes prescription medications and other substances that impair safe driving.
• Detectable controlled substances: Even if impairment is not proved, the law criminalizes driving when any detectable amount of a Schedule I–IV controlled dangerous substance, or its metabolite, is present in the driver’s blood and the substance was not medically prescribed.

Vehicular homicide carries severe penalties. A conviction results in a fine between $2,000 and $15,000 and five to thirty years of imprisonment, with at least three years to be served without probation, parole or suspension. If the driver’s BAC is 0.15 % or more, or if the driver has a prior DWI conviction, at least five years of the sentence must be served without probation or parole. When a driver’s BAC exceeds 0.20 %, vehicular homicide is classified as a crime of violence, which can affect sentencing and parole eligibility. Additionally, if multiple people—including an unborn child—are killed, the statute requires consecutive sentences for each victim

Elements Required for Conviction

To secure a conviction for vehicular homicide, the prosecution must establish each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Operation or physical control of a vehicle: The defendant must have been operating, driving, or otherwise exercising actual physical control over a motor vehicle, boat, aircraft or other conveyance. This element requires evidence that the defendant was the driver. Louisiana appellate courts have affirmed convictions where witnesses testified that the defendant crawled out of the driver’s side of a truck and admitted to driving; the victim had never learned to drive, making it reasonable for jurors to conclude that the defendant was driving【707579694800838†L200-L209】. Conversely, convictions are vulnerable when the state cannot prove who was behind the wheel.
2. Impairment or unlawful substance level: The state must prove that one of the statutory conditions existed at the time of the accident—either the driver’s BAC was 0.08 % or higher, the driver was actually impaired by alcohol or drugs, or the driver had detectable amounts of certain controlled substances. In many cases, prosecutors rely on blood tests taken under the Implied Consent Law. Courts require that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant before drawing blood, and they have excluded test results when law enforcement failed to meet procedural requirements.
3. Causation: There must be a causal relationship between the driver’s impairment and the victim’s death. The Louisiana Supreme Court has made clear that La. R.S. 14:32.1 does not create any presumption of causation. In State v. Taylor, the court held that the statute aims to punish drivers whose unlawful BAC, in combination with their vehicle operation, causes a death. The court emphasized that the state must prove that the offender’s impairment contributed to the fatal crash; a traffic fatality that merely coincides with an unlawful BAC is insufficient. Later appellate decisions have adopted a “contributing factor” or “substantial factor” test, requiring the state to show that the impairment was at least a contributing cause of the accident【707579694800838†L233-L241】. Evidence that a driver was impaired but the accident was unavoidable, such as when a pedestrian suddenly stepped into traffic, may defeat the causation element【707579694800838†L305-L314】.

The interplay of these elements means that vehicular homicide cases are fact‐intensive. Prosecutors must prove not only that the defendant was impaired or had an unlawful substance level, but also that the impairment actually contributed to the death.

Reasonable Defenses to Vehicular Homicide

Defending a vehicular homicide case requires a careful examination of the evidence and an understanding of the law. The following defenses often arise:

Challenging the Identity of the Driver

The state must prove that the defendant was driving or in control of the vehicle. In State v. Gill, the defendant crawled out of the driver’s side after the accident and admitted to driving; the court found this sufficient【707579694800838†L200-L209】. In State v. Trahan, the court rejected the defendant’s claim that a passenger drove because the passenger could not operate a standard transmission and the physical evidence showed the defendant was behind the wheel【707579694800838†L202-L209】. On the other hand, if evidence suggests that someone else was driving or that the defendant was merely a passenger, the charge may not be sustained.

Disputing Impairment or Substance Levels

Not every blood test result is admissible. Under Louisiana’s Implied Consent Law, officers must have probable cause to arrest before drawing a suspect’s blood. In some cases, courts have excluded blood tests when officers failed to advise defendants of their rights or lacked probable cause. Chain‐of‐custody challenges may also render test results inadmissible. Additionally, prescription medications can cause a positive test for controlled substances; if a driver can show that a drug was medically ordered and taken as prescribed, the presence of that drug may not establish impairment.

Contesting Causation

Even if impairment is established, the state must prove that it was a contributing factor. Courts have overturned convictions when other factors caused the accident. In State v. Kenny, the appellate court found insufficient evidence of causation where a pedestrian stepped into the lane of travel on a dark night; nothing showed that the defendant was speeding or driving erratically, and an expert testified that any driver would have hit the pedestrian regardless of intoxication【
707579694800838†L305-L314】. Similarly, where another vehicle’s excessive speed or unexpected actions caused the collision, defendants have successfully argued that their impairment was not a cause.

Third‐Party Fault or Superseding Causes

Defendants may present evidence that a defect in the roadway, another driver’s negligence, or an unavoidable hazard caused the accident. Trooper testimony that a defendant swerved to avoid a hazard could support a defense that the accident would have occurred regardless of intoxication. For example, the court in State v. Simmons noted that a trooper’s statement about the defendant veering right did not create a reasonable hypothesis that the victim swerved into the defendant’s lane first; however, such testimony, if supported by other evidence, could raise reasonable doubt【
707579694800838†L211-L214】.

Challenging BAC Calculations and Forensic Science

Blood alcohol concentration calculations involve retrograde extrapolation and assumptions about a person’s absorption and elimination rates. Defense experts can challenge the state’s calculations by showing that the defendant’s BAC at the time of the accident was lower than the test indicates. When controlled substances are involved, an expert may testify that the substance’s concentration did not impair driving or that the metabolite detected does not indicate current impairment. At The Ambeau Law Firm, we often engage forensic toxicologists to scrutinize the state’s lab procedures and the statistical assumptions underlying BAC or drug impairment evidence.

Case Law Highlights

Louisiana courts have developed significant jurisprudence interpreting La. R.S. 14:32.1. Several cases illustrate how courts apply the elements and defenses:

• State v. Taylor (La. 1985): The Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. The court held that vehicular homicide must be construed to punish drivers whose unlawful BAC combined with their operation of a vehicle to cause a death. The decision clarified that the statute does not create any presumption of causation and that the state must show a causal relationship.
• State v. Louis‑Juste (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016): The appellate court explained that the “substantial factor” and “proximate cause of death” standards are interchangeable and that the state must show that the driver’s unlawful BAC contributed to the victim’s death【707579694800838†L233-L241】. In that case, evidence that the defendant’s high BAC, poor driving and failure to notify authorities contributed to the accident was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
• State v. Leger (La. 2019): The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld five vehicular homicide convictions after a defendant drove aggressively at high speed, flashing his lights and attempting to pass on the shoulder; the evidence showed that his intoxication was a contributing factor【707579694800838†L253-L262】.
• State v. Watts (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014): The appellate court affirmed a conviction where the defendant’s BAC was 0.09 %, he was traveling 84–95 mph in a 45 mph zone, and witnesses testified to erratic driving【707579694800838†L264-L273】. The court held that the jury could reasonably conclude that intoxication caused the collision despite the defendant’s argument that he could not have avoided the accident.
• State v. Dock (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015): The court found that evidence of a BAC of 0.12 %, plus high speed and reckless driving, was sufficient to show that intoxication was a contributing factor【707579694800838†L264-L273】.
• State v. Beene (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015): A BAC of 0.18 % with expert testimony that such intoxication would impair motor skills supported the conviction【707579694800838†L264-L273】.
• State v. Kenny (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013): The court reversed a conviction where a pedestrian stepped into traffic; there was no evidence of speeding or erratic driving, and an expert testified that the accident was unavoidable, so the state failed to establish causation【707579694800838†L305-L314】.
• State v. Banks (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013): The court upheld a conviction where the defendant’s vehicle struck multiple cars and she travelled half a mile with deployed airbags; toxicology indicated high levels of dextromethorphan (cold medicine), and an expert testified it can act like a dissociative anesthetic【707579694800838†L274-L283】.
• State v. Simmons (La. App. 2 Cir. 2021): The court held that the jury could reject the defendant’s argument that the victim swerved into his lane; the trooper’s testimony did not support that hypothesis, and the court affirmed that the defendant’s impairment was the proximate cause【707579694800838†L211-L214】.
• State v. Gill, Trahan and Pearson: These cases demonstrate that proof the defendant was the driver can rely on admissions and physical evidence. In Gill, the defendant crawled from the driver’s side and admitted driving【707579694800838†L200-L209】. In Trahan, physical injuries and transmission type proved the defendant was the driver【707579694800838†L200-L209】. In Pearson, the defendant was pinned under the steering wheel and admitted driving【707579694800838†L200-L209】.

These cases highlight how courts examine both the defendant’s impairment and the causal nexus to the death. They also illustrate how factual disputes—such as who was driving or whether an accident was unavoidable—can tip the scale.

Below is the complete statutory language from Louisiana’s Revised Statutes, current through 2025:

§ 32.1. Vehicular homicide

A. Vehicular homicide is the death of a human being caused proximately or caused directly by an offender who is involved in the operation of, or in actual physical control of, any motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other means of conveyance, whether or not the offender intended to cause death or great bodily harm, whenever any of the following conditions exists and such condition was a contributing to the killing:

1. The operator is impaired by alcoholic beverages as set on by chemical tests administered under R.S. 32:662.
2. The operator’s blood‐alcohol concentration is 0.08 % or more by weight.
3. The operator is impaired by any other drug, combination of drugs, or combination of alcohol and drugs.
4. The operator is impaired by alcoholic beverages.
5. The operator’s blood has any detectable amount of a Schedule I–IV controlled dangerous substance that has not been medically prescribed.

B. Whoever commits vehicular homicide shall be fined $2,000–$15,000 and imprisoned for 5–30 years, with at least three years to be served without probation, parole or suspension. If the offender’s BAC is 0.15 % or more, or if the offender was previously convicted of DWI, at least five years of the sentence must be served without probation or parole. The court shall require participation in a court‑approved substance abuse program and may require participation in a driver improvement program.

C. Vehicular homicide is classified as a crime of violence when the offender’s BAC exceeds 0.20 %.

D. When a vehicular homicide results in the deaths of two or more people, the offender must be sentenced separately for each victim, and the sentences must run consecutively. For this purpose, a human being includes an unborn child.

How The Ambeau Law Firm Can Help

Vehicular homicide cases have intricate legal matters and horrific facts. I recognize both the human cost that these cases exact and the technical complexity involved as both a criminal defense attorney and forensic science practitioner. When you retain The Ambeau Law Firm, you receive:

• In‐depth investigation: We examine police reports, accident reconstruction reports, and blood-alcohol tests. We make sure field sobriety tests and blood draws were done legally and dispute any discontinuity in chain of custody.
• Forensic expertise: Our experts consult with toxicologists and accident reconstruction specialists to analyze whether your impairment really was the cause of the crash. We dispute incorrect retrograde extrapolations and point out scientific uncertainty to establish reasonable doubt.
• Legal strategy: We ground our arguments in case law, arguing that the state needs to establish causation and cannot simply rely on the presence of drugs or alcohol. We examine all defenses such as identity of the driver, third‐party fault and intervening causes.
• Advocacy for fair sentencing: If a conviction is inevitable, we provide proof of your integrity, remorse, and extenuating circumstances to make a plea for the least severe sentence. We also see to it that the court’s mandatory programming needs are properly adjusted to suit your situation.

Vehicular homicide allegations are life-altering. With rigorous investigation, scientific acumen and an intimate understanding of Louisiana legislation, we battle to safeguard your rights and obtain the optimum result.

If you need legal help or have questions about vehicular homicide charges, contact The Ambeau Law Firm. Our experience in criminal defense and forensic science will provide the insight and advocacy you deserve.

Louisiana Laws – Louisiana State Legislature