Conviction tossed in crash death of girl

A state appeals court overturned a Redwood City man’s manslaughter conviction Thursday for a car crash that killed an 8- year- old girl, saying prosecutors violated the man’s right to remain silent by arguing that he showed indifference to his victims’ fate by failing to ask police about their condition.

Richard Tom’s car, speeding down Woodside Road in Redwood City, slammed into a vehicle driven by Lorraine Wong as she was turning left from Santa Clara Avenue one night in February 2007. Wong’s 8- year- old daughter, Sidney Ng, was killed, and another daughter, 10- year- old Kendall Ng, suffered a broken arm and other injuries and spent a week in the hospital.

There was no stop sign in Tom’s direction, and his lawyer argued that he had the right of way. But a prosecution investigator said Tom had been driving at least 67 mph on a road with a 35 mph limit. A defense investigator put his speed at 49 to 52 mph.

A San Mateo County jury convicted Tom of gross vehicular manslaughter, and he was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was freed on bail during his appeal in 2012 after serving about three years. In a separate case, another jury awarded Wong and her family $ 7.25 million in damages against Tom, a verdict that another appellate panel upheld two months ago.

The main issue in Tom’s appeal was the prosecution’s treatment of his interactions with police. Tom, who was in the real estate business, first asked officers if he could go home, then chatted with them briefly in the patrol car, but said nothing when he was questioned at the police station.

At the trial, a prosecutor asked two officers if Tom had ever inquired about his victims’ condition, and was told he hadn’t. The prosecutor returned to that point during closing arguments, telling the jury that Tom’s failure to ask about the victims showed he didn’t care about them and was concerned only with “saving his own skin.”

The appeals court first overturned Tom’s conviction in 2012, but was overruled in August 2014 by the state Supreme Court, which said prosecutors can refer to a suspect’s silence unless the suspect has clearly told police he or she won’t discuss the subject.

Told to reconsider Tom’s case, the appeals court again threw out his conviction Thursday, saying he had told police that he would not make a statement without an attorney present.

Bringing up Tom’s silence was “highly prejudicial,” Justice Martin Jenkins said in the 3- 0 ruling. He said the critical question was whether Tom had driven recklessly without regard to the dangers he caused, and that jurors could have used his silence as evidence to convict him.