Earlier in the month, Diabetes News Hound ran a column about 59-year old Leonard Campos, who is facing manslaughter charges after his low blood sugar level caused him to pass out behind the wheel. The ensuing wreck killed a pedestrian and injured Campos and a passenger. Campos pleaded not guilty to the charges. (See: Man Pleads Not Guilty in Diabetes Car Crash Death).
This story received a lot of attention, with readers expressing strong opinions on both sides. Some felt Campos was irresponsible and should be found guilty because he did not test his blood sugar levels shortly before the crash. Others expressed views more in line with Campos’ defense: that this was a horrific accident.
Michael Yraceburn, the Supervising Deputy District on the case, agreed to chat with Diabetes News Hound to explain the thinking behind bringing the charges. California law limits Yraceburn from going into certain details of the case at this point, but he provided a great deal of insight into the case.
Check out the Q&A below.
DNH: Mr. Campos said this was a horrible accident. In your mind, what took this beyond being an accident and lead you to file felony manslaughter charges in the case?
Yraceburn: I think the thing we want to make clear is that it’s because of his choice in how he managed his diabetes, not the fact that he is a diabetic that caused this accident. If you are smart about managing your diabetes and doing what your doctor is saying, this would not have happened.
From our perspective, the issue is that over a period of time prior to the accident, Mr. Campos willfully chose to ignore his diabetic condition. We looked at the whole case and his medical history. We went back to his doctors and discussed it with them. We went to the individuals who provided him with his training on managing his diabetes. We went to other experts in the state and even my own in-house expert. We were very deliberate in our review of this case before we filed it. It took us almost eight months from the time it happened to make our final decision. We determined that he made a conscious choice to ignore his diabetic symptoms.
DNH: Several people I spoke with felt Campos clearly did something wrong, but from the facts they saw, they weren’t quite convinced he should be charged with manslaughter because of the hefty amount of time he could spend behind bars if convicted. Is there or was there a charge lesser than manslaughter that you considered bringing?
Yraceburn: There was no lesser charge that I was considering bringing. There are individuals that do get killed and it’s truly an accident. And then there is a misdemeanor charge and it’s called simple negligence where you’re just going along and get distracted or are not paying attention when you should have been and something happens. But, we looked at what he chose to do, the acts he did based on his choices and not his diabetes and not even on the death. It is our opinion that it is clear that he was grossly negligent and that he willfully did acts that caused someone to die with a conscious disregard for that outcome.
DNH: When you have diabetes, low blood sugar is a constant threat. How did this play into your thinking?
Yraceburn: Our position is that when the onset occurred, Mr. Campos willfully chose not to pull over and part of his history is that he willfully ignores the onset.
DNH: How, if at all, did hypoglycemic unawareness come into play in this case? People that are hypo-unaware don’t always feel the warning signs of low blood sugar, such as shaky hands or sweating. Campos said he did not feel anything out of the ordinary to indicate his blood sugar was low.
Yraceburn: That is an aspect where the doctors reviewed the condition. I understand what you are saying, but he had an opportunity when he was conscious not to drive that vehicle. The onset of symptoms were there. When we file a gross negligence charge that means we have to prove he consciously drove the vehicle in a manner where he did not care about the outcome of his acts. Part of that is, in our opinion, is willfully ignoring the onset of his condition and failing to take care of that.
One of my deputies is a diabetic and he has gone blind from his diabetes and he is still prosecuting cases and does a wonderful job. I spent a long time talking to him about this case and the various issues that went into this. It’s clear in our mind that the lifestyle Mr. Campos has chosen in managing his diabetes was one of willful negligence by managing it by a lot of different ways than by with insulin and a lot of the other things doctors had told him.
DNH: Is he Type 1 or Type 2?
Yraceburn: He’s type 1. He is on insulin. He is supposed to be testing. I’m just going to leave it at that
DNH: A woman was killed.
Yraceburn: A woman who was truly innocent. She was pulling weeds in her yard. She never saw this truck coming. He shouldn’t have been on the road.
DNH: Reports also indicated that his passenger urged him to pull over.
Yraceburn: The passenger could have been driving the vehicle and not him. The onset actually occurred prior to them even getting in the car.
DNH: You see all sorts of cases. Have you ever been involved in anything comparable?
Yraceburn: Fortunately it was not a death, but a person was seriously injured where someone had literally one or two drinks but was taking prescription meds that said done imbibe alcohol while on this medication. They pulled out of the restaurant in a negligent manner and smashed into two people and broke the hips and legs of one of the passengers.
Like a lot of rural counties, we have two-lane highways and people have made decisions about driving – speeding, whipping around, weaving between cars, driving on the shoulder to get around cars and then killed someone. The choice to drive in that manner has led to the same type of felony charge. We focus on their acts.
DNH: What’s your expected timeline for the case?
Yraceburn: In California we have a statutory right to speedy trial. The defense is going to want to take a look at Mr. Campos’ medical history and have their own experts. These kind of cases take about a year to a year and half to get to resolution.
DNH: Unless a deal is struck?
Yraceburn: Yes. We take these very seriously because of the vulnerability of the victims because they don’t usually see it coming. We don’t usually discuss settlement until way down the road after my trial deputy has had the opportunity to really investigate the matter.
(Diabetes News Hound also reached out to Campos’ attorney and request an interview. We have not yet heard back but will provide an update if we do.)
To receive free news updates from Diabetes News Hound delivered straight to your Inbox, sign up here.
If you already receive the free Alerts, spread the word by telling a friend to sign up here.
[...] You can check the conversation we had with the District Attorney prosecuting the case (See: DA in Car Crash Death: Diabetes Not on Trial). [...]
[...] Police say Campos’ blood sugar level was in the low 40s following the accident. Campos, who stopped at a convenience store shortly before the crash, said he didn’t notice any of the warning signs that he was low. The District Attorney in the case said that Campos was being charged because of how he managed his diabetes, not because he was a diabetic. In an interview with Diabetes News Hound, he said that if Campos was “smart” about managing his diabetes and did what his doctor said, the accident would not have happened. “From our perspective, the issue is that over a period of time prior to the accident, Mr. Campos willfully chose to ignore his diabetic condition,” said Michael Yraceburn, the Supervising Deputy District on the case. (For the full interview, see DA in Car Crash Death: Diabetes Not on Trial.) [...]