We generally do not blog criminal cases, but this one involves A.R.S. 28-672, which imposes a criminal penalty for a violation of certain civil traffic laws, including the red-light statute. The enhanced penalty statute turns a civil traffic violation into a criminal violation when “the violation results in an accident causing serious physical injury or death. . . ”  We emphasize the words ‘”results in”‘ because the opinion depends on them.

The defendant rear-ended a vehicle stopped at a red light. The impact pushed both vehicles into the intersection, resulting in the death of one of the occupants. The Arizona Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Judge Montgomery, held that the enhanced penalty statute does not apply. After consulting dictionaries, including the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the court concluded that “results in” refers to a sequence of events: first, a moving violation, and then an accident. Since the defendant did not enter the intersection until after the collision, the civil traffic violation did not cause the accident. (This is the second time Montgomery has referenced the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy when interpreting causation.) Justice Bolick authored a vigorous dissent and concluded by urging the legislature to amend the statute, lamenting: “But even if it does, it will be cold comfort to the victim family, which in our view was clearly within the intended protective scope of the enhanced penalty statute.” Such comments are intended to do what?