By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge wrongly took a fatal traffic case away from a jury after concluding that a passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel caused the crash, the Court of Appeal has ruled in ordering Delmaro Johnson to face a new trial.

The appellate court said the judge improperly resolved disputed evidence himself when he acquitted Johnson of vehicular manslaughter by dangerous driving and negligently causing grievous harm arising from an April 2025 collision on Carmichael Road that killed Timothy Stubbs and injured his son, Travonne Stubbs.

The Court of Appeal found there was evidence Johnson had been driving at more than 56mph while involved in an altercation with his passenger, Kiara Murphy, before the Honda Pilot suddenly entered the path of an oncoming Nissan Cube.

Even if Ms Murphy did grab the steering wheel, the court said, Johnson’s continued driving above the speed limit while struggling with her or distracted by an agitated passenger could still amount to dangerous driving.

The court also said it was for a jury — not the trial judge — to decide whether Ms Murphy had actually pulled the wheel because prosecutors had placed conflicting accounts before the court.

A police officer testified that Ms Murphy said at the scene that she had pulled the steering wheel because she was “fed up” with Johnson. However, during a subsequent police interview and statement under caution, she denied pulling it.

The Court of Appeal said the trial judge fell into error by relying on a “but for” test — reasoning that the collision would not have happened but for Ms Murphy’s alleged actions — when the jury had never determined the central factual question of whether she had pulled the wheel.

Johnson was driving a 2011 Honda Pilot on Carmichael Road on April 21, 2025, with Ms Murphy in the front passenger seat when it collided with the Nissan Cube occupied by Mr Stubbs and his son.

Travonne Stubbs was injured. His father also suffered injuries and subsequently died.

Johnson and Ms Murphy were jointly charged in May 2025.

The indictment alleged that they were “concerned together” in driving the Honda Pilot dangerously, causing Mr Stubbs’ death and grievous bodily harm to his son.

Johnson’s trial began before Justice Neil Brathwaite and a jury on March 17.

The prosecution’s case was that Johnson had been driving at a high rate of speed while quarrelling with Ms Murphy for some distance.

Evidence before the trial court was that Ms Murphy threw Johnson’s telephone from the vehicle, that he turned around to retrieve it and that he attempted at some point to call police while continuing to drive.

The prosecution also relied on evidence from a 919 call in which the caller reportedly said the driver was fighting with the passenger before the collision.

A traffic reconstructionist testified that Johnson’s Honda Pilot was travelling at more than 56 miles per hour before making a sudden right turn into the lane that was occupied by the Nissan.

Justice Brathwaite accepted that, without the evidence concerning Ms Murphy, Johnson would have had a case to answer.

However, he concluded that the prosecution’s own evidence was that Ms Murphy grabbed the steering wheel and caused the Honda to veer into the oncoming lane. The judge found it was not open to a properly directed jury to conclude that Johnson should have foreseen Ms Murphy grabbing the wheel.

Applying the “but for” test, he concluded that the collision would not have happened but for her actions and upheld Johnson’s submission that there was no case for him to answer. He directed verdicts of not guilty on both charges.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed.

In reasons delivered by Court of Appeal President Justice Milton Evans, the appellate judges said the central questions — who was driving, whether the collision caused Stubbs’ death and whether the vehicle had been driven negligently or dangerously — were matters for the jury.

The court said a trial judge deciding a no-case submission must determine whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a jury could convict, rather than decide whether the jury would ultimately accept that evidence.

The judges were also critical of Justice Brathwaite’s handling of the charge of negligently causing grievous harm, saying it was “significant and unfortunate” that he did not address that count in his ruling. They found there was evidence that Johnson was driving at a high rate of speed while fighting with Ms Murphy and said a jury could conclude, if it accepted that evidence, that his driving was negligent.The court said it was also foreseeable in those circumstances that an accident could occur.

The Court of Appeal quashed Johnson’s acquittal and sent the case back to the Supreme Court for a retrial.