C.R.S. § 18-3-106 defines vehicular homicide as causing the death of another person while driving a motor vehicle either recklessly or while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both.

Unlike most other homicide statutes, vehicular homicide is frequently charged in connection with DUI cases — often as a strict-liability felony.

---

Three Primary Types of Vehicular Homicide

Vehicular Homicide – Reckless Driving

Occurs when a driver operates a vehicle in a reckless manner that causes the death of another person.

• Class 4 felony
• Sentencing range: 2 – 6 years in the Department of Corrections
• Aggravated range: up to 12 years, followed by 3 years parole
• Fine: $2,000 – $500,000

---

Vehicular Homicide – DUI or DUID (Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Drugs, or Both)

If a driver operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, one or more drugs, or a combination of both, and that conduct causes the death of another, the driver commits vehicular homicide (DUI).

This offense is strict liability — meaning the prosecution need not prove intent to cause death.

• Class 3 felony
• Sentencing range: 4 – 12 years in DOC
• Aggravated range: up to 24 years, followed by 5 years parole
• Fine: $3,000 – $750,000

---

Vehicular Homicide – DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired)

Under C.R.S. § 18-3-106(1)(b)(I.5), if a driver’s ability is impaired “to the slightest degree” by alcohol, one or more drugs, or both, and that conduct causes the death of another person, the offense is vehicular homicide (DWAI).

• Class 4 felony
• Sentencing range: 2 – 6 years in DOC
• Aggravated range: up to 12 years, followed by 3 years parole
• Fine: $2,000 – $500,000

---

Key Legal Principles

• The statute distinguishes reckless, DUI, and DWAI forms but treats them as alternative ways of committing the single offense of vehicular homicide.
• Colorado courts have confirmed that DUI is a lesser-included offense of vehicular-homicide-DUI (Reyna-Abarca v. People, 390 P.3d 816 (Colo. 2017)).
• Consent is not constitutionally required for blood draws in vehicular homicide investigations, and officers may obtain samples with a warrant or under statutory authority (People v. Deadmond, 683 P.2d 763 (Colo. 1984)).
• Courts have upheld the statute against equal-protection and due-process challenges (People v. Rostad, 669 P.2d 126 (Colo. 1983)).

---

Understanding “Strict Liability”

Vehicular homicide (DUI) does not require proof that the defendant intended to cause death.

The prosecution must show only that:

1. The defendant voluntarily drove a motor vehicle;
2. The defendant was under the influence or impaired; and
3. That conduct was the proximate cause of another’s death.

---

Proximate Cause

Colorado law allows multiple proximate causes.

A driver may still be criminally liable even if another factor — such as another driver’s conduct or road conditions — also contributed to the fatality (People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 277 (Colo. App. 2004)).

---

Blood and Chemical Testing

Law enforcement may obtain blood or breath samples without the driver’s consent if there is probable cause to believe the offense occurred.

Refusal can be introduced as evidence at trial.

Following People v. Raider, 516 P.3d 911 (Colo. 2022), most agencies now obtain search warrants for blood draws in serious-injury or death cases.

---

Defending Vehicular Homicide Charges in Colorado

Vehicular homicide cases are among the most complex and emotionally charged prosecutions in Colorado criminal law.

A single crash can trigger parallel investigations by law enforcement, accident reconstruction experts, and forensic toxicologists — all of whom may offer conflicting opinions about what actually caused the death.

The defense must carefully separate impairment, recklessness, and causation, because the law treats each theory differently.

---

Challenging Impairment and Causation

In DUI-based vehicular homicide cases, impairment alone is not enough.

The prosecution must prove that the driver’s impairment was the proximate cause of the death — not merely that alcohol or drugs were present.

Key defense considerations include:

• Toxicology interpretation: BAC levels don’t always reflect impairment at the time of driving.
• Accident reconstruction: Mechanical failure, roadway design, or another driver’s actions can be major factors.
• Causation breaks: Intervening events — such as another driver’s negligence or a medical emergency — can sever criminal liability.

---

Evaluating the “Reckless” Standard

For the reckless form of vehicular homicide, the prosecution must show more than simple carelessness.

Reckless means consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk — a willful gamble with the safety of others.

Many fatal crashes caused by momentary inattention or judgment error do not meet that standard.

---

Blood Draws, Search Warrants, and Constitutional Issues

Vehicular homicide investigations often involve compelled blood draws — sometimes while the driver is unconscious.

While Colorado’s implied-consent law (C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1) authorizes testing under certain circumstances, search warrants are now the standard practice.

Defense issues may include:

• Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause,
• Whether the draw was performed reasonably, and
• Whether the blood’s chain of custody was reliable.

---

Sentencing and Mitigation

Vehicular homicide is a felony with severe penalties, but sentencing outcomes vary widely based on:

• Prior record,
• BAC or drug concentration,
• Victim impact and restitution factors, and
• Acceptance of responsibility or demonstrated remorse.

Mitigation evidence can determine whether the outcome falls in the aggravated or presumptive range — or whether probation may even be possible in rare cases.

---

The Role of Independent Experts

Defending a vehicular homicide case often requires collaboration with:

• Accident reconstruction engineers,
• Forensic toxicologists,
• Biomechanical or medical experts, and
• Human-factors specialists who analyze perception and reaction time.

These experts can expose flaws in police assumptions and help the fact-finder understand that tragedy does not always equal criminal culpability.