March 2023 | Volume 14, Issue 8

Find additional articles and information on ABC, ABC News, and DailyMail.

According to the article, a California man who prosecutors say intentionally drove his Tesla off a cliff with his family inside is facing attempted murder charges. Dharmesh Arvind Patel, 41, of Pasadena, was recently arraigned on three felony counts of attempted murder at the San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City. He did not enter a plea and was ordered to remain held without bail in the San Mateo County Jail in Redwood City.

Patel is accused of intentionally trying to kill his wife and two young children by driving their car off a cliff on California's scenic Highway 1, just south of the Tom Lantos tunnels, on the morning of January 2. The California Highway Patrol said its officers were dispatched to the scene about 15 miles south of San Francisco at approximately 10:50 a.m. local time and, upon arrival, located a white Tesla some 300 feet down the cliff.

First responders repelled down the cliff to rescue the occupants from the mangled vehicle -- two adults and two children. All four were then transported to a local hospital with "serious injuries," according to the California Highway Patrol. After interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence from the scene, investigators developed probable cause to believe the incident was an intentional act and placed the driver -- identified as Patel -- under arrest for attempted murder and child abuse. Investigators were unable to determine what driving mode the Tesla was in at the time, but "that does not appear to be a contributing factor in this incident," the California Highway Patrol said in a January 3 press release.

Patel was recently released from the hospital and subsequently booked into the San Mateo County Jail. The San Mateo County District Attorney's Office filed the attempted murder charges against Patel on Monday. Two of three counts have domestic violence and great bodily injury enhancements, according to the complaint. After Patel's arraignment, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe held a brief press conference to give an update on the investigation. He said evidence shows there were no signs of braking or skid marks before the car plunged off the cliff. Eyewitnesses who were driving behind Patel's Tesla at the time have told investigators that the vehicle's brake lights did not illuminate as it turned and drove off the edge, according to Wagstaffe.

Investigators have also recovered video from surveillance cameras near the Tom Lantos tunnels that show the Tesla driving out of a tunnel and off a cliff. Based on the evidence, prosecutors are certain that this was attempted murder. The footage will not be released to the public, the district attorney said.

The California Highway Patrol is still examining the wrecked car to make sure no malfunction occurred, in which case the charges would be changed, according to Wagstaffe, who noted that he does not anticipate this to happen.

Patel's 41-year-old wife suffered "major injuries" from the crash and remains hospitalized, the district attorney said. Their 7-year-old daughter was also badly hurt, while their 4-year-old son "miraculously" sustained only bruises, according to Wagstaffe, who said that's why there were no enhancements added to the third count of attempted murder. "By some miracle that I don't understand, all of them have survived. I'm glad for that," Wagstaffe told reporters. "But it doesn't change (what) we've charged him with."

The district attorney said his office views the case as domestic violence. The judge denied the prosecutor's request for a no-contact order and instead granted a no-harassment order, according to Wagstaffe. A potential motive remains under investigation. "I mean, we know the motive was he didn't want any of them to live any longer," Wagstaffe added. "But what led to this, what has caused this, what was the trigger -- that's still under investigation. We're hoping to learn more when the wife is hopefully available for an interview and is willing to speak with us at that point."

If convicted on all charges with the special circumstances, Patel could be sentenced to a maximum of life in prison. He is due back in court on February 9 and is expected to enter a plea, according to Wagstaffe.

Discussion Questions

  1. Define attempted murder. Legally, what does it mean to “attempt” a crime?
    Attempted murder is a “substantial step” toward the commission of a murder. If the defendant succeeds in committing murder, the attempt “merges into” the actual murder itself, meaning that the defendant would not be charged with both attempted murder and murder. If, however, the defendant does not succeed in committing the murder, the defendant can still be prosecuted for the attempt. There is no scientific definition of what constitutes a substantial step or what amounts to an attempt. Instead, the court decides based on the unique facts and circumstances of a particular case. Just like a defendant can be prosecuted for attempted murder, they can also be prosecuted for the attempt of virtually any other crime (for example, robbery, rape, arson, battery, etc.).
  2. As indicated in the second “update” article above, Mr. Patel’s defense attorney, Josh Bentley, told the court that Patel’s wife did not want her husband prosecuted despite an earlier comment she made saying the crash was not an accident. Assume that this is true. Should the prosecutor nevertheless proceed with the charges against Mr. Patel? Why or why not?
    This is a discretionary call that the prosecutor must make. If the prosecution believes it can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it will likely proceed against the defendant without the “blessing” of the defendant’s spouse. Remember, although virtually every crime involves a victim, a crime is ultimately wrong against society, and when the prosecution brings an action against a defendant, it seeks justice not only for the victim but for society as well.
  3. Assume that the prosecutor proceeds with the charges against Mr. Patel, and Mrs. Patel refuses to testify against him, asserting spousal privilege. Would the prosecution be able to overcome the assertion of this privilege and compel Mrs. Patel to testify? If not, in your reasoned opinion, would the prosecution be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? Why or why not?
    Spousal privilege, also known as marital privilege and husband-wife privilege, includes two types of privileges: (1) the spousal communications privilege; and (2) the spousal testimonial privilege. The spousal communications privilege applies in civil and criminal cases. It shields communications made in confidence during a valid marriage. The purpose of the privilege is to provide assurance that all private statements between spouses will be free from public exposure. To invoke a spousal communications privilege, the party must establish that (a) at the time of the communication, the spouses were in a valid marriage; (b) the communications were intended to convey information between spouses, and neither spouse has disclosed the communication to a third party; and (c) the communications were intended to be confidential. The spousal testimonial privilege precludes one spouse from testifying against the other spouse in criminal or related proceedings. Either spouse can invoke the privilege to prevent the testimony. In short, if Mrs. Patel chooses to assert spousal privilege (and the marriage is still intact at the time of trial), the prosecution would not likely be able to compel Mrs. Patel to testify. In terms of whether the prosecution would otherwise be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, answering that question would be difficult at this juncture: Such proof would have to come from (perhaps) the testimony of the children, circumstantial evidence already publicly-known (eyewitness testimony, lack of skid marks prior to the car going over the cliff, etc.), other evidence not yet available to the public, and (perhaps) Mrs. Patel’s “excited utterance” at the crime scene that the crash was not an accident. As an example of the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule, according to Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay): The following (is) not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness: …Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.