North Pole man gets 7 years in dragging death
Published Saturday, May 10, 2008
A North Pole man convicted in the dragging death of a woman was sentenced to more than seven years in prison Friday.
Authorities say that after a night of drinking, Kevin Garner, 26, struck 53-year-old Catherine Ahsoak while she lay in the middle of the road in the early morning hours of Feb. 4, 2007, dragging her several blocks back to his friend’s apartment. The body of Ahsoak, who was deaf, was found under his car the next morning. An autopsy found Ahsoak’s blood-alcohol content to be 0.229 percent and that her body contained nearly three times the recommended dose of the antihistamine Benadryl
Assistant District Attorney Corinne Vorenkamp repeatedly brought up Garner’s alcohol abuse, including a prior DUI conviction in Tennessee, while asking that Garner be sentenced to nine years in prison in addition to suspended time.
“It’s incomprehensible that he could drag a body a quarter mile without knowing it,” she said. “It doesn’t mean he’s a bad person. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have potential. It means he’s an incredible alcoholic.”
Garner’s public defender, Michael Biderman, called the accident “a profound tragedy” but argued his client deserved a flat sentence of seven years. He said Garner had cooperated with authorities and hopes to work with community organizations in the future to prevent drunken driving.
Dozens of people who have known Garner through the years sent Judge Randy M. Olsen letters asking for leniency. Among them was Don Allmond Sr., Ahsoak’s ex-husband. While Allmond did not attend Friday’s sentencing, Olsen said he found his words powerful and read a portion of the letter in court.
“I can’t help but feel sorry for Mr. Garner, and I truly wish him the best for the future,” Allmond wrote. “I hold no ill feelings toward him, and I am truly certain he feels remorse.”
In addition to the seven-year sentence for manslaughter, Olsen sentenced Garner to two months in prison for the DUI conviction, with an additional 10 months suspended. Garner also will be on probation for three years after he is released and is not to consume or possess alcohol. He will also have to pay thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees.
In the course of a weeklong trial last October, Garner’s attorney admitted that his client had been drinking before the incident but suggested that Ahsoak was dead or dying of hypothermia at the time of the accident.
The jury convicted Garner of manslaughter and driving under the influence but acquitted him of failing to render aid.
Garner was originally set to be sentenced in February. In a rarely granted rulingm the judge found that Garner had extraordinary potential for rehabilitation and sent the sentencing to a three-judge panel.
The panel, which hears only a handful of cases each year, could have sentenced Garner to less than the presumptive minimum of seven years in prison for manslaughter. After several hours of deliberation at a hearing last month, the judges agreed that Garner, who has been helping fellow inmates at Fairbanks Correctional Center obtain their GEDs, showed great potential for rehabilitation and praised him for his cooperation with authorities. However, they felt that he still deserved a sentence in the range of seven to 11 years.
“We can’t get over the following factor: He ran over an innocent person,” said Anchorage Superior Court Judge Stephanie E. Joannides, who spoke for the panel. “A sober person would have stopped.”
Garner’s attorney said Friday that he may file an appeal.
Comments
How is a person with a blood alcohol content of .229 percent passed out in the middle of the street an innocent person? It seems like the victim was clearly more at fault in this case.
So, you're saying that a drunk can run over and kill another drunk, and that should be okay??!!
I think culltheherd, that he is suggesting exactlty what your name implies.
2555 days to think about it.......
I would have liked to know if it was snowing, seems to me that even if you were sober that you could not see someone immobile laying in the snow with another light layer of snow on top of them.
Seven years plus is much too long for this type of crime. Someone lying in the middle of the roadway, dead drunk and overdosed on Benadryl is not an innocent victim and would very likely have gotten run over by a sober person (had one happened along before another drunk person). A sober person running over this "victim" would have generated no crime, just a horrible accident. That person would have said the same thing that Garner said: "I never saw her!"
The situation would have been different if Garner had swerved up onto the sidewalk and run down a pedestrian or crossed the centerline to collide with another car full of innocents. But that isn't what happened. He ran over a drunk who was passed out in the middle of the road in the middle of the night in the middle of the winter. Giving him 7+ years for that is a travesty of justice that serves no purpose at all.
I do not think the punishment fits the crime in this situation. yes, it is apalling that he was driving drunk. He admitted to it, my guess he had what some might refer to as a "Sobering incident". But, to claim the Woman's death was somehow his responsiblity? It is devastating enough to reallize that you killed someone. Then to find out that the Law basically is against you even though the Woman clearly had no reguard for her own life and would have more than likely died one way or another, Whether it have been the elements or another vehicle. I say in this instance, it was purely the vehicle that killed her. I always thought in the case of manslaughter you had to be aware that there was a victim? Clearly this man was not aware.
He should have pleaded insanity.
I wanna know how the drunk in the street got dragged so far. Was she alive and holding on to the bottom of the vehicle for a few minutes?
A strange case, indeed. You can't make this stuff up folks.
Fact of the matter is he ran someone over and drug her several blocks and didn't even know it. You can't say a sober person would have stopped.... it all depends on the conditions of that particular evening. The man deserves to do some time.... period.
Check this out, this guy had repeated offenses and was driving like a jerk and put his friend in a wheelchair.
Only 8 months, slap on the wrist.......
http://omg.yahoo.com/judge-sends-wrestle...
Whats funny is that people like Justin Thomerson only had to do 9 months. Isn't our justice system awesome!
The sentence absolutely fits the crime. I wonder how a native man would have gotten sentenced if he hit a white lady on the road? To say that the Fairbanks court system is colorblind is a complete fallacy.
yes, the justice system is flawed. people walk for some crimes that would make even the strongest stomaches turn, and then this guy gets 7 years? I am not saying he should not have gotten anything, quite the contrary. I have a friend that stopped and rendered aide at an accident in Houston. her and her friend had just finished nursing school, they where hit by a drunk driver, both killed instantly. This was this mans second offense, He got 6 monthes probabtion and the Civil case was dismissed. That folks was intentional, sober or not to blow through an accident. I am just not sure even sober I would have noticed in the snow that I hit someone that got trapped somehow under my car. Remember she was past out drunk to, barely alive with that much alcohol and meds in her system. I just wonder where her friends where? Woman never go out drinking by ourselves. Maybe the friends should be tried for negligent homicide for allowing her to get out of their sight obviously snockered... Hmm... suprised they did not try that angle..
This is why they usually don't let us comment on this stuff.
Somebody had to pull the race card.
And it seems like it is usually coming from the same place.
I suggest that if a native man had hit a white lady--to use your words--the three judge panel might have kicked in for the lesser sentence fearing the usual racial accusations that always follow...
Maybe I read something that nobody else read. But, he hit her, dragged her body several blocks, and didn't find her until the next day. How does her being drunk make that OK?
Just a little thought to contribute to the conversation... According to reports this guy was driving a small car about the same size as mine. If I so much as drive over an aluminum can, I feel a significant jolt -- I can not IMAGINE how stupefyingly, absurdly impaired one would have to be to not notice running over another human being, let alone dragging her along for several blocks and then parking on her. Just saying...
Your right, he should have gone around her and let her die of hypothermia. Then it would have been no ones fault but her own.
Hi Em!
thank you chelc and RP!!!!!!!!
Oh and my friends are not responsible for my actions. I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN ACTIONS. To ask where her friends where and say women should never go out drinking by themselves is absurd. Not that I am condoning drinking by yourself but lets be real people.
No doubt the guy should be nailed for the DUI, but what the case doesn't make clear--at least to me--is if she were really alive or dead when it happened. The factors of high BAC mixed with levels of diphenhydramine 3 times the norm (which 1 alone has sedative effects on most people to impair driving), and it being cold enough to induce hypothermia with inadequate clothing (a low of -7F for 4 Feb 2007) would probably do her in. What I wonder is what the medical examiner believed to be the actual cause of death, being run over and dragged several miles, or from exposure before the incident occurred.
I agree that it takes a great deal of impairment to not notice hiting something as big as a human body. Not to mention the racket it would make, you'd have to be deaf not to hear that.
You would get a stiffer sentence for killing a bear out of season.
When you drive a car you are responsible for anything in your path. Full control of your vehicle at all times. To determine if there was an accident or something criminal has to do with a determination as to if the accident was caused because of some neglect on the part of the driver or if it was completely out of their control.
Mr. Garner seems to be a really good kid that made a life changing mistake. Sure it might have been snowing (which I think it was if I remember correctly) and he might not have seen her and hit her. That would have been out of his control and not his fault. But….once he hit her he should have stopped to see what he hit. A sober person would have thought at the very least that they hit something and would have wanted to check to make sure they had not damaged their car. It was the DWI that got him. Because he was drunk he did not notice that he had hit anything. If he had been sober he would have got out to check, calling the cops, and that would have been the end of it. He would never have been convicted if the conditions were as we have assumed it might have been……snowy, etc. In fact he probably would not have even been charged in the first place.
As far as the drunk that was passed out in the road. I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for the drunks that wonder around our streets but the issue is really not about if she was drunk, dead, or otherwise. Because of Mr. Garner’s actions we will never know the condition of the woman he hit. According to what a friend of his told me…..there were 3 different medical examiners that could not determine when she died. If it was because of being hit and drug or if she was already dead. The point is that had Mr. Garner been sober and called the cops at the moment it happened then the condition of the woman that he hit would have been able to be determined.
One more reason not to drink and drive. An accident that could have happened to anyone happened to him and because of his inebriated state he did not even know anything happened. Sad that it had to happen to what seems like such a good kid (have asked some correctional officers I know…..they really like him). But……I don’t agree with mandatory minimums in any situation. I think that judges and juries should be able to take everything into account and sentence people based on everything about the person, their background, and their crime. I think that Mr. Garner should serve some time but not 7 years!
i think 7 years is to much, for this was not a crime of passion nor hate it was a freak incounter of the worse kind then it got taken way out of its contents by tunnel vision and the media i wish that it had never happened to kevin or ms.ahsoak but what about the passenger why could he have not had said something to kevin or his sober friend at his home where they went he could have saved 2 lives!! guess no one ever thought about that well i think kevin should file for a appeal and i hope he gets his time cut in half for i and my youngest son want him back home with us
People.... I don't think anyone reading this could say they have not heard that drinking and driving is dangerous. If you get behind the wheel after drinking and you kill someone I think you should be charged with Murder II. You make the choice, IT IS DANGEROUS and you are taking the risk. It is easy if you want to drink don't drive.
For you asking for less jail time. Tell me if Ms. Ahsoak was your daughter, mother, aunt, friend or relative what would you want. I do feel for Kevin but he did the crime and now it is time for him to do his time.
Sounds like the only reason he got anything was because he was up front, honest and cooperated. Had he fought it, a good lawyer could have gotten the drunk part of the driving thrown out: no proof, just his word that he was drinking.
What I've learned from this tragedy is this,
If I go out drinking and then drive home, I may run over someone and have to go to prison for 7 years.
nicegal_2b
“it got taken way out of its contents by tunnel vision and the media”
Kevin ran over someone and did not even know it because he was driving drunk. How can you blame the media for that?
“what about the passenger why could he have not had said something to kevin or his sober friend at his home where they went he could have saved 2 lives!!”
Blame the passenger? The only person with any responsibility is the person behind the wheel! Kevin was the only one required to be in control of the vehicle HE was driving.
But without knowing all the details I will throw out a possible answer to the question as to why the passenger or friend didn't say or do anything. If Kevin and his friend were out drinking and his friend allowed Kevin to drive in his obviously impaired state then that stands to reason that he was probably just as drunk as Kevin and did not know they hit anything either. As to the sober friend at the home where he went.....he was probably in bed and would have no reason to get out of bed in the middle of the night to go out in the freezing cold and do a walk around Kevin's car for no reason!
Maybe Kevin should have thought about the possible consequences before he got behind the wheel of a car drunk! If he would have thought about that then HE could have saved 2 lives!
I don’t know what Kevin says but the people that call themselves his friends seem to think that just because the woman he hit was drunk and possibly already dead he should not be judged and punished for what HE did. What if it would have been a sober person, say a 16 year old girl walking home from babysitting and had been walking home that night, happened to slip on the snow/ice, fell into the street, and was knocked out in the fall. And then the same thing happened. Would you feel that Kevin would need to be punished then? If so…..why? What would make the sober 16 year old girl’s life any more precious than the drunk 53 year old woman? Because at the root of everything is that Kevin drove drunk…..ran over a person, did not know it because he was so drunk, and that person ended up dead.
The more I think about this situation the more I am thinking that maybe Kevin got what he should have and maybe not long enough. Had it been the situation that I presented in the above paragraph people would have been coming unglued ready to hang him for it. The only reason that there has not been that HUGE outcry is because the person was drunk and possibly half dead already. I have to admit I was part of the group that kind of put the victim on trial in my own mind. I believe that if an honest accident happens no one should be charged with anything. An “accident” that happens when drunk, is not an accident. Drinking and driving changes an accident into a criminal act. I am sure that is what drove the jury to make their decision and from what the judge that spoke for the panel said….that is what drove their decision as well.
nicegal_2b
“i hope he gets his time cut in half for i and my youngest son want him back home with us”
I heard a judge tell someone one time when he tried to make the point that his family needed him…..”you should have thought about the fact that your family needed you before you committed your crime.”
That judge was right and a statement that has stuck with me for these 15 years since.
sprtsgrl11, had you read what I wrote, I stated that women just don't go out and drink by themselves.. We just don't do it, not our nature. And I was being sarcastic about the friends should have been arrested. My point was that I think it was absurd that we give this guy 7 yrs for this crime, again he should have been punished but 7 yrs was extreme. She would have laid there and died anyway. Had she I am sure her friends probably would have been responsible in way way or another, thatis how the Justice system sees things. next time I will be more specific when I am being sarcastic!
I am trying to find the silver lining, if there is one. One thing is for sure and that is that Kevin had a life changing moment that night. It sounds as though he would have been or caused a fatality at some point with the decision making that he had shown and this will most likely save his life. Most systems of forgiveness are based on seven years, back from the time of Moses right on up through todays credit reports. If this is what it took to save Kevin, as sad as it is, perhaps that was the plan. My prayers go out to Catherine Ahsoaks family.
I have a unique perspective on this incident. "I" was struck by a car and dragged underneath it when I was a child. I was playing in a mud puddle behind her car in her driveway, she backed out striking me between the neck and shoulders, pulled straight, caught my dress and dragged me a few feet before other children raced up screaming and flailing their arms. It was broad daylight, summer time, she was sober and NO she could not feel or hear me under the car. Had other children not alerted her to my dilema I more than likely would have been killed. (I vividly remember watching the wheels turning and I was screaming loud enough to wake the dead.)
There are two separate issues here: driving impaired and a freak accident. Our roads are notoriously rutted and bumpy during winter. It was snowing. Perhaps the windows were up, the heater was going full blast and the radio was on. The DUI is a given, the rest is speculation. As I was not present as a juror and did not hear all of the testimony, I have no comment regarding the sentence.
In conclusion, after my mother's hysterics subsided she wisely placed me on restriction for disregarding her rule about playing near cars.
Mrs S
p.s. And, please, please, please leave race out of the scenario.
Here are three factors on why this individual recieved his 7 year sentence :
Did not immediately report the involved accident while leaving the scene of the location of where it occured- *GUILTY*
The individual was in FACT driving while intoxicated when the accident happened , and very unfortunate that it was very serious accident in which a injury or fatality was involved- *GUILTY*
This individual was proven as a REPEAT OFFENDER as he was convicted of a prior DWI offense- *GUILTY BY IRRESPONSIBLITY*
The circumstances involved were very unfortunate as the offender and the victim were both at fault in this tragedy, as both individuals abused alcohol by drinking excessive amounts which leads to poor judgement and reaction times while altering body functions.
Alaska Law under its jurisdiction states that any accident over $500 in property damage on public areas (10-50 D), any injury to a person or animal on private property or public areas regardless of location (10-50 I), or any fatality to a person or animal on private property or public areas regardless of location (10-50 F)/(10-79) must be immediately reported or as soon as possible.
It doesnt matter if this victim was already dead, previously ran over before, passed out on the roadway or what have ya- the fact is this drunk driving person ran over and dragged this victim with a vehicle without stopping and reporting it IMMEDIATELY....Any sober person driving forward would have seen debris in the roadway or feel something striking their vehicle on impact if a person or object was not in plain view.....thats called a hit and run folks, regardless if a person driving was sober or not !
How many more alcohol related incidents (tragic and non tragic) is it going to take for people to stop being irresponsible ? (10-55 and 10-56) - The answer is ZERO TOLERENCE, however all levels of federal and state governments refuse to enforce this answer....
WHY DO WE ASK ? - Simple , its because of parting away peoples money and the american economy ! Alcohol is such a moneymaker directly and indirectly.
Court systems make a mint in all alcohol related incidents (DUIS-domestic violence-civil lawsuits-etc.)
Insurance companies make more money to insure irresponsible drivers by paying SR-22 premiums for concurrent months while they 'donate' some portions of money back to lawmakers and law enforcement in order to keep their cash cow goin...
Auto makers also benefit by sales of parts for damaged vehicles and by selling more vehicles caused by drunk drivers when they total one or more vehicles in any major accident...
Businesses also benefit by impounding vehicles, repairing vehicles such as auto body and auto repair shops, liquor stores selling the products for a profit...
Governments even benefit by imposing federal, state, and sales taxes, plus incarceration of repeat offenders by funding contracts to house them paid by us taxpayers (in which the alcoholics already paid their way to live in jail by buying the tax imposed products that got them there)...
Medical field also benefits by treating all wounds and broken body parts of individuals in alcohol related accidents and domestic violence caused by alcohol, and the alcoholics that make it close to senior citizen status age will have more frequent hospital and doctor visits to treat their abuse that finally caught up with them...
Why is it that the government preaches of 'caring for our safety' by enacting these laws and yet allow these first time and repeat offenders still drive behind the wheel - its a proven fact that heavier levies in fines and license revokations do not deter the offender, as long as alcohol exists...In countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Japan will put you to death upon a drunk driving conviction on the FIRST OFFENSE, so it is not tolerated and their alcohol related accident percentage rate is very low compared to the United States in which (is still) 50 percent of all accidents are alcohol related...
Thats why the United States has no regards to saving lives on our highways and roadways... the governments, court systems, insurance companies, medical doctors and hospitals, auto industry, and alcohol industry would rather prosper making money over saving many lives that end up killed by this product called alcohol.
I agree with Clay. How do they determine what really killed her? Does anyone know what Garner's BAC was at the time of the accident. Not saying that it makes any difference as to his level of responsibility, but, was he falling down drunk or did he have a beer?
pixy... what evidence do you have that she was going to die anyway. Yes I realize she was suffering from hypothermia but the evidence does not say conclusively she was dead when he hit her.
and what your saying is it's ok since she was going to die anyway... perhaps he did her a favor?!?! um I hardly think so. the man was driving drunk. Sounds like this guy was a good man who made a horrible mistake...REGARDLESS, he has to serve time for the mistake he made
“We can’t get over the following factor: He ran over an innocent person,”................A person with a .229 BAC, and HIGH on cold meds, in NOT an innocent person.
Okay I was going to pass of commenting but it bugged me the more I read. This “good guy” was a repeat offender. Does that make him a good guy? At what point is someone with such poor judgment deemed a bad guy. We complain about others not receiving justice for like crimes. Remember that each crime has a sentence minimum and he received the minimum for the crimes he was convicted of. If we want better justice we need better judges and stop ducking jury duty. In this case and so many others a life was lost to the price of cab fare. Stop trying to justify his crime by vilifying the victim. Did she have a hand in the circumstances of her own death? Yes, but was she responsible for him driving drunk? No.
AKsilvereagle, why on Earth are you quoting 10-codes in a NewsMiner post?
Do you feel more important now?
Or are you a bit loopy (that's 10-96 in your language)?
What if he had not hit her and went his way. Perhaps a following driver would have seen her, stopped called 911, and saved her life. That would mean Garner had killed her while drunk. Wish those medical examiners had figured it out. I guess it's not like on tv. We do not take drunk driving seriously except to use it as an excuse to harass drivers. I say go back to 0.10 BAC but minimum 15 years for drunk fatalities.
Friends don't let friends DRINK & DRIVE. This guy did it twice, so he obviously didn't learn the 1st time. Oh yeah, this is a mother, daughter, auntie, and friend, that did have a drinking problem... NOT A DRUNK. He got what he deserves!
My point was that I am suprised that she was laying in the street drunk or dead, as we do not know. If no one in the establishment or someone driving had not seen her how do we know how much his drinking effected that accident. He should get punised, absolutely and it should be a prison term, however my point is this is a hard one to judge. I did not mean to come across insensitive. I just have a hard time as many have understanding how exactly he was sentenced to 7 years? Also, as friends don't let friends drive drunk, another life lesson don't leave your drunk friends alone in or at the bar, they could end up dead in the street!
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.