Jury will decide if driver was criminally responsible for Lexington motorcyclist’s death
A jury will decide if Matthew Starling, 33, should be held criminally responsible for his involvement in a crash that left a 25-year-old motorcyclist dead two years ago.
The jury began deliberating Thursday afternoon following days of testimony of experts and witnesses and arguments from prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Starling faces charges of second-degree manslaughter and driving under the influence after colliding with Daezon Morgan in a crash that left Morgan dead, according to court records. The accident occurred on June 8, 2020, when Starling turned in front of Morgan, who was driving his motorcycle on Richmond Road.
If found guilty of the manslaughter charge, he could face up to 10 years in prison.
Prosecutors: ‘This isn’t an accident’
Prosecutors and the defense were focused on Starling’s level of impairment during closing arguments. The prosecution argued that Starling was indeed impaired and that the amount of alcohol he consumed before the crash influenced his decision making that evening.
“This isn’t an accident,” said Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Brad Bryant. “It happened because this defendant drove impaired.”
Bryant said that according to court testimony, Starling’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the collision was projected to be between 0.116 and 0.128. The legal limit is 0.08. His blood test later measured at 0.078, but it was taken hours after the crash, according to court testimony.
Starling previously testified that he had a shot of tequila, sips of a cocktail and multiple alcoholic ciders or beers hours before the crash.
“He drank enough alcohol between 5:45 and 7:30 (p.m.) that nearly four hours after the collision, he is still a 0.078,” Bryant said.
Bryant also brought up Starling’s performance on field sobriety tests, which police used to determine he was intoxicated. Bryant also said police were observing how attentive Starling was as he took instruction on the tests.
“Look at the one-leg stand, where the defendant couldn’t follow the simple direction, ‘raise your foot approximately 6 inches above the ground,’” Bryant said. “Raising your foot 2 inches isn’t approximate. If he raised it 5 (inches) I could see it, but barely raising your foot is not following the directions.”
Bryant also said Starling should’ve had better judgment driving at the intersection where the crash occurred. Starling said in court that he’s driven that intersection hundreds of times and is aware how dangerous it can be due to blind spots.
“He didn’t take two seconds to stop and look. He didn’t stop and inch forward, even though he knows that’s a dangerous intersection,” Bryant said. “That’s because alcohol is affecting his thought process.”
Bryant said the jury should find Starling guilty of manslaughter because of his driving while impaired.
Defense: Deadly crash ‘was just an accident’
Starling’s lawyer, Fred Peters, argued that Starling shouldn’t be blamed for the crash and said Starling wasn’t impaired.
“The Commonwealth submits that that action of (Starling) was either second degree manslaughter or reckless or homicide,” Peters said. “Ladies and gentlemen, we submit that was just an accident.”
Peters argued that Starling had little difficulty performing field sobriety tests and played recordings of the test.
“He swayed side-to-side (for the one-legged stand test). Well he may have done that when he first started out for one second and did not hold his foot 6 inches off the ground. Ladies and gentlemen, he held it 2-to-3 inches off the ground, which I’d submit is harder,” Peters said.
Peters also took issue with Sgt. Brandon Muravchick, the police officer who administered the field sobriety tests and arrested Starling after determining he failed multiple parts of the tests. Muravchick testified on Wednesday about the tests he administered to Starling.
Peters expressed concern over the test results Wednesday, asking Muravchick multiple times if Starling got any credit for the things he did right, such as walking normally in the hospital without the pressure that comes with field sobriety tests. Muravchick said the totality of Starling’s actions that night were considered during his examination.
Muravchick didn’t arrive at the scene until hours after the accident because it was his day off and he resided in Frankfort,, according to court testimony. Starling didn’t undergo the field sobriety tests until hours after the crash.
“I’d submit that he wasn’t going to let somebody go after having to do all that work,” Peters said during closing arguments Thursday. “And I would submit to you ladies and gentlemen that he wasn’t fair in his testing of Mr. Starling because he never gave him any partial credit and only highlighted the one or two things that he may not have done properly but ignoring all the other stuff that he did OK.”
Peters also pointed out the testimony from multiple friends of Starling’s who said they were with Starling that evening would not have let him get behind the wheel if he showed signs of impairment.
“Mr. Starling, right after this accident happened, did not slur his words, does not appear to be falling over drunk, does not appear to be walking in an unnatural manner,” Peters said. “He appears to be a young man that was just involved in a serious accident and he was scared to death.”
Closing arguments ended around 4 p.m. Thursday, at which point the jury began deliberations. The jury will need to reach a unanimous decision to determine whether to acquit or convict Starling.
Previous trial coverage
Starling’s trial started earlier this week as both prosecutors and Starling’s defense team called witnesses and experts to the stand. Those who gave earlier testimony spoke to Starling’s level of intoxication, his failure on field sobriety tests and other factors in the crash.
Investigators and experts also spoke to Morgan’s speed on his motorcycle and the amount of marijuana that was in his system when his body was examined after the crash.
Starling also testified on his own behalf Thursday morning, speaking on the lead-up to the crash.
