Whitehorse Daily Star

Driver appeals conviction, seeks his freedom

A man convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm is waiting to learn if he will be released from jail pending his appeal.

By Stephanie Waddell on May 24, 2012

A man convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm is waiting to learn if he will be released from jail pending his appeal.

Michael Schmidt is currently serving an eight-month sentence on the two counts.

In court earlier this week, Justice Ron Veale ordered that a bail supervision report for Michael Schmidt be filed by 4 p.m. today.

A hearing over Schmidt's release will be held in Vancouver at a later date.

On Dec. 14, 2009, Schmidt was driving from Whitehorse to Haines Junction with Jessica Frotten and Michael Sanderson when his Honda car rolled on the Alaska Highway near the Takhini River Bridge.

Both Frotten and Sanderson were ejected from the vehicle. Frotten suffered a broken back, a torn aorta, broken feet, punctured lungs, several broken ribs and a concussion.

She is now paralyzed and uses a wheelchair.

Sanderson broke his right shoulder, left leg, multiple ribs and tore the ligaments in his left knee.

After a trial last fall, Schmidt was acquitted on two counts of dangerous driving and two counts of driving with a blood alcohol count of 0.08.

He was found guilty of the two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

Schmidt has maintained that though he had been drinking beer at lunch prior to the crash, it did not impair his driving.

In his handwritten appeal documents, Schmidt, who is representing himself, argues his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated when his breath sample was taken by the arresting officer because there was not enough evidence to demand a sample.

"It was not established that I was over the legal limit of 0.08 per cent,” Schmidt wrote in his appeal documents.

In fact, he pointed out, expert testimony by Dr. Mariah Wallener rendered the calculation of his blood alcohol level invalid.

"The finding of my impairment was made on subjective grounds....” Schmidt stated, going on to note "very minor and circumstantial” indicators of his impairment.

Along with admitting to having had some beer with lunch, he noted he also had red eyes caused by the deployment of one of the car's airbags.

The smell of alcohol, he argued, came not only from the beer he had consumed at lunch, but also from the beer his passengers had purchased exploding in the car and covering him during the rollover.

While witness testimony was largely favourable to Schmidt, he noted it may have also played a factor in the judge's decision.

Schmidt also argues Veale seemed to believe it hadn't been demonstrated that road conditions played a role in the crash when evidence at trial showed road conditions were a factor in the mishap.

Schmidt has maintained road conditions – including frost heaves and black ice – led to the crash.

"I believe that Justice Veale did not correctly measure the balance of fault for the accident between my actions and the road conditions that led to my vehicle sliding into the ditch at highway speed and rolling,” Schmidt states in his appeal documents.

"The defect in the road surface should have been clearly marked, which would have helped prevent the accident.”

In the court documents seeking his release pending the appeal, Schmidt notes that while he was convicted of assault in Victoria within the last five years, he was given a discharge after doing community service, submitting a written apology and having been on a year's probation.

He was an upstanding and positive member of the community in recent years, Schmidt noted.

He has also been "of good behaviour” during his two months at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, helping the inmate work crew build homes for Habitat for Humanity.

As he looks towards being released, he's been in discussions with a number of potential employers, largely in the construction industry, the documents state.

Schmidt's mother is proposed to act as his surety if he is released.

Comments (14)

Up 0 Down 0

Wayne on May 31, 2012 at 12:34 am

Wasn't it Ms. Frotten who picked up all

the beer from her employer, Yukon Brewing Company? Mr. Schmidt doesn't need to be jailed.

Up 0 Down 0

drunk drivers suck on May 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm

If you drink, don't drive. Period. With grad parties coming up tomorrow night and the weekends following, please remind the teens to have a DD. I agree with all in this case who say to Michael to serve his time. He is making a fool of himself even appealing; you drank, you drove, you suck, now suck up your consequences. As a female, I take pride in the fact that I don't drink and didn't drink during the six years I chose to b. feed my children. And people can't remain alcohol free while driving? Give me a break. The Yukon continues to allow people to drink and drive and it's the 'societal norm'; time for us to get tough and ban people for life from driving who cause such tramatic injuries... Why is there so much smashed glass on the North Alaska highway right now? You got it-- DRUNK DRIVERS SUCK--GET A LIFE AND SAVE A LIFE--DD.

Up 0 Down 0

false memory on May 30, 2012 at 3:26 am

To Mr. Schmidt. You got handed a sentence that should have you thanking your lucky stars yet instead you try to pull this crap.

As far as the name tag "false memory" goes. I am always sad to hear about Jes, that being said. I'm confused as to why you would go from telling us she was sitting cross legged and without a seatbelt to the opposite.

Regardless of how it happened however this boy (he's not a man) should receive extra time for wasting more peoples time and money.

Not to mention how the entire frotten family feels versus one stupid and angry little boy. Their entire family will be devastated again if they let Schmidt out early. If his sentence was many years long, fine. However it is not.

If the system gives this man an inch they will be taking a mile from the Frottens. The first time around people were not able to stop this boy. Now that he is trying to further prove how truly ignorant he is, I say if you have an opinion make it heard.

YOU can help stop this boy from hurting this family even more than he has. They still have an open wound, you can help prevent it from getting worse!

Up 0 Down 0

Megan Frotten on May 29, 2012 at 6:04 am

I am Jessica Frotten's little sister, in case you don't know that. I sat through this court case and watched as Schmidt sat slouched in his chair staring blankly around the courtroom, obviously not caring about his fate or the fate he caused Jessica and Sanderson. The last time I saw his face he turned to us (my family) to make his final statement. Asking to be punished, in hopes it would make us feel better because that was the only way he could see that happening. Well, his sentence left me with an sick feeling in my stomach. He got, in my opinion a slap on the wrist. But I was ok with that because it was done, or so I thought. Now that sick feeling is back in my stomach, I wish my sister could appeal her sentence. I wish my sister could pick up her nephew and dance with him like she used to. But she can't, she has to live with her decision to get in the vehicle with that sorry excuse for a man every day, no chance of appeal or perks for good behavior. Think about it. He got less then he deserves. Shut up and do your time Schmidt.

And as for the seat belt comment. Jess was wearing hers, she had the bruise to prove it after the accident. Go assume something else. I understand you trying to remind people to wear them but get your facts straight.

Up 0 Down 0

Alex on May 29, 2012 at 2:06 am

Why is nobody talking about the tragedy of two passengers choosing not to wear seatbelts? (I assume, as I have never heard of anyone wearing a seatbelt flying out of a car)

Having been in a high speed rollover and walked away, it seems to me that's what escalated the whole situation. Is it just me, or do we have a tragically high incidence in Yukon of accidents where people are just "ejected from the vehicle."

Wear your seatbelts, folks! Just do it.

Up 0 Down 0

Debra Boyle on May 28, 2012 at 10:53 pm

I too have heard quite enough about how hard done by this man (and I use that term loosely) feels he is. Not only has my niece Jessica been a victim of a drunk driver, my daughter was also seriously injured in a drunk driving accident. While the driver that injured her never did any time, both Jessica and my daughter have to face their time every day.

My daughter fortunately has only scars to remind her, my niece however has a life sentence to live with. To suggest there was not just cause for a breathalyzer is just insane. Did Michael not say in the article that he smelled like beer, because it was spilled on him? I think that would be just cause. It makes me sick that this man has the audacity to say his rights were violated, in our society when you do harm to others, you lose certain rights, and one of those is your freedom!

So Mr Schmidt, I would say to you SUCK IT UP PRINCESS... do your time, pay your debt to society because you will never repay the debt you owe my niece!

Up 0 Down 0

shelagh frotten on May 25, 2012 at 9:31 am

John, he doesn't have the option of community service, or fine. He is appealing the loss of his license and the fact that he has to be in jail for 6 more months (if that). Jessica made a decision and got in his vehicle and she has to live with that decision for the rest of her life and has been living with it for the last 3 years. Michael is still not accepting responsibility (the road should have been marked, they violated my rights....) enough. Michael Schmidt you made a bad decision a very bad decision and you should face that just like your passengers have to face it. and remember your punishment for a bad decision is not a life sentence unlike the ones you were responsible for.

Up 0 Down 0

Cathy on May 25, 2012 at 8:56 am

Not a threat to society? Until he chooses to drink and drive again if he does.

Up 0 Down 0

John Layman on May 25, 2012 at 8:38 am

If he is not a threat to society, he shouldn't be sitting in a jail wasting taxpayers money, when he could be out working, contributing to the economy, and his family.

He should pay a hefty fine, lose his license, and do community service.

I support his appeal.

Up 0 Down 0

flyingfur on May 25, 2012 at 5:53 am

Bobby: Evidence at the trial was pretty clear; he drank prior to driving the car and the accident was the result of his impairment. The only thing that was not established beyond a reasonable doubt was his exacty blood-alcohol level. It was proven that his ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by his consumption of alcohol. This guy got his sentence and the young lady got hers too. Difference is she cannot appeal hers and ask for leniency based on good behaviour - she has to serve the full sentence. He should be a man and finally take responsibility for what he caused rather than trying to wiggle out of his responsibility by throwing the charter at the wall to see if it sticks.

Up 0 Down 0

Anya & Jeff Mackay on May 25, 2012 at 4:47 am

We support you Michael.

Up 0 Down 0

Patrick on May 24, 2012 at 10:48 am

I agree with the judge. Drinking and driving, even well below the legal limit is impaired driving.

Serve your time, it was pretty lenient, and then get on with your life. Hopefully you will be a better person.

Up 0 Down 0

bobby bitman on May 24, 2012 at 9:06 am

I agree with this appeal and hope he gets it. First of all, a criminal conviction is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt and that level of proof was not reached. Second, it seems that there was just a sense that the driver should be sent to jail because a girl ended up in a wheel chair. Meanwhile she was sitting at the table drinking beer with the driver and nevertheless got in the vehicle with him behind the wheel. She needs to take responsibility for her decisions as well and how they contributed to the bodily harm in question. It is not as if she were walking alongside the road when the accident happened. She was a participant in the venture to drink beer and then drive to Haines Junction. Eight months in jail is a very serious sentence, and I believe in this case it was based on someone being paralyzed, not based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Up 0 Down 0

Linda Magill on May 24, 2012 at 7:22 am

Is this guy serious.... "In his handwritten appeal documents, Schmidt, who is representing himself, argues his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated when his breath sample was taken by the arresting officer because there was not enough evidence to demand a sample."

I guess the two people THROWN from the vehicle (and Jess now paralized) isn't enough "evidence"....

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.