CRIME WATCH FOLLOWUP: West Seattle Bridge vehicular-homicide suspect moved from hospital to jail

Three months after the West Seattle Bridge crash that ended two young lives, the driver charged with killing the two 18-year-old victims has been booked into jail. The King County Jail roster shows 36-year-old Delfino Lopez-Morales was booked Saturday, as was expected to happen as soon as he was released from the hospital. He is scheduled to appear in King County Superior Court tomorrow for arraignment on the charges filed against him three weeks ago – two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of reckless driving. Lopez-Morales’s bail is set at $250,000. Prosecutors say he was driving 100 mph, under the influence of alcohol and cannabis, going the wrong way on the westbound West Seattle Bridge, when he smashed into the car in which Khalea Thoeuk and Riley Danard, Snohomish County residents, were heading to Alki Beach in the early-morning hours of March 22nd. Before being booked into jail, Lopez-Morales was at Harborview Medical Center for more than a month and then, according to court documents, moved to rehab at UW Medical Center.

Lamont June 25, 2023 (8:20 pm)

That should really be two counts of first degree murder under the “extreme indifference to human life” provision. Drunk and high in a pickup truck doing 100 mph the wrong way on the freeway should meet that criteria.

Jay June 26, 2023 (9:07 am)

First degree murder requires premeditation and planning. Second degree murder he’d still walk because the prosecutor would have to prove that he swerved into them or took an action that deliberately resulted in their death knowing that the action would cause harm to them. The charges that he is facing are Class A felonies that carry life sentences and there’s a 100% chance he’ll be convicted with the evidence that the county has.
- wscommuter June 26, 2023 (10:38 am)
  
  With all due respect, you’re mistaken in your statements about 1st degree murder (premeditation is but one alternative factor that can establish this element); you’re likewise incorrect that he is facing a life sentence. Vehicular Homicide, even while intoxicated, will not result in a life sentence – the Sentencing Reform Act sets out standard range sentences that are imposed under the framework of being an “A” felony. He’ll serve a decade or so; perhaps a bit more, assuming he is convicted.
  - ACG June 26, 2023 (4:38 pm)
    
    Thanks wscommuter- your insight into these legal matters is always so helpful. That said, I’m sad that the current guidelines will only enforce a decade of prison. My condolences to Kahlea and Riley’s family and friends. They did not deserve to have their lives taken at such a young age.
  - A local June 27, 2023 (8:42 am)
    
    Wrong. Per RCW 9A.32.030
    
    1st degree murder either has to be premeditated. As in you are intending to kill someone.
    OR you have to cause a death during a rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary or arson.This doesnt fit either case for 1st.
    
    It doesnt fit 2nd because you still have to be intending to cause a death, but not preplanning it. Like coming in, finding your spouse in bed with someone, and shooting them.
    
    Whether or not anyone likes it, its 1st or 2nd degree manslaughter. Period.
    
    The bloodthirstyness of people on the internet often surprises me when it comes to people committing crimes.
    
    I mean, depraved indifference to human life causing death is deserving of some decent punishment.
    
    But holy cow, people on the internet act like every criminal is Ted Bundy. “THEY SHOULD GET LIFE IN PRISON FOR 1ST DEGREE MURDER.”
    
    No. No they shouldnt. We are a civilized nation. The reason why laws exist is to prevent emotional mob rule.
    
    The fact that so many people dont understand state law makes me wonder if you all are actually from here.
- Lamont June 27, 2023 (4:01 pm)
  
  RCW 9A.32.030
  
  Murder in the first degree.
  
  (1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
  (a) With a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or
  she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
  (b) Under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life,
  he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any
  person, and thereby causes the death of a person; or […]
  
  One of the provisions of first degree murder requires premeditation and planning. That is connected by an “or” clause to another provision which is a “depraved heart murder” provision (then there’s also a third additional clause which is quite complicated).
  - A local June 28, 2023 (8:11 am)
    
    Depraved heart murder is clause B. The issue being that the event has to be committed *with malice and forethought knowing that such an event will most likely result in death even if death was not intended*.
    
    Say, shooting up a house. You may not be intending to hit and kill a specific someone, but your actions show planning and malice. If you do hit and kill someone, its still 1st degree murder. Or trying to harm a person with intent, and you end up killing someone else instead. 1st degree murder requires planning and malice in all cases.
    
    The event in question we are discussing does not qualify. There was no malicious intent towards the victims here. There are other statutes this fits. Manslaughter basically is “you didnt have intent to harm anyone but you did something so grossly wrong and negligent you killed someone”.

Lisab June 25, 2023 (8:30 pm)

Thank God this guy is FINALLY behind bars.

Admyrl Byrd June 25, 2023 (9:45 pm)

am i the only one that thinks 250k bail is kinda low?

1994 June 25, 2023 (10:20 pm)

Nope! He killed 2 people! He should plead guilty, he was caught at the crime scene.
Ann H June 26, 2023 (8:49 am)

Only $250K for *2* lives is so inadequate – I’m at a loss to express how outrageous that amount is considering he was clocked at 😳 100 mph on 35th Ave Sw. He would’ve “caught air” going thru the intersection across from the Mount at that speed. 😳 You know what I mean if you live in W.Seattle!
- WestSeattleBadTakes June 26, 2023 (11:19 am)
  
  This isn’t how bail works. Please folks, educate yourselves.
Jeff June 26, 2023 (10:33 am)

Bail isn’t intended to be part of the punishment, and is calculated based on flight risk and other factors. This guy is absolutely going to go up the river, but again: bail is not part of his sentence.
- admyrl byrd June 26, 2023 (11:05 pm)
  
  But bail should be commensurate with the severity of the crime and the flight risk, and a 250k bond would be easily justified to sacrifice for your freedom. Put another way, why are most homicides 7 figures per?

Chrissy D June 25, 2023 (10:03 pm)

2 lives ended prematurely because of this lowlife and only $250k?

Neighbor June 26, 2023 (11:09 am)

250k is bail, not anything to do with his sentence. He is going to be locked up for a long time.

wetone June 26, 2023 (8:42 am)

Let’s see here, just thinking out loud. $250k bail seems extremely low for what this person is accused of. Then you have this person spending last 3 months in hospital most likely owing a vary large sum of $$$$$$. I can already see how this is going to go…………..

Regular Guy June 26, 2023 (9:53 am)

Scum. Throw away the key.

Lisab June 26, 2023 (12:40 pm)

Yup. Absolute scum.

KD June 26, 2023 (1:48 pm)

Would like to know who paid for all of that very long hospitalization and rehab recovery. Must’ve tipped the over 1 million by now, and it’s probably passed onto us health insurance payers and taxpayers.. for his selfish actions.

WestSeattleBadTakes June 26, 2023 (3:20 pm)

A lot of words to say “let him die.”

Drop the indignation and be honest.
- admyrl byrd June 26, 2023 (11:09 pm)
  
  Again, more sanctimony towards a legitimate question; how does society realistically deal with the costs associated with the bad choices of an individual? Why is it that we assume the risk of these costs? Do we find ways to aggressively go after those that may have contributed to this? Those that served him alcohol? The seller of pot? The provider of the vehicle?I, for one, don’t care for paying the moral hazards incurred by others. Unfortunately, if you extend this logically, the only conclusion is mandatory breathalyzer locks for all vehicles.
  - CAM June 27, 2023 (7:40 am)
    
    The “only” conclusion is universal healthcare to stop all these nonsense conversations. And if you were honest with yourself you’d admit that the point of the initial question here was not about whether or not certain businesses should be liable for the healthcare costs of the defendant or the victims in incidents like this. It was a not so subtle remark to point out that they did not feel this person was worth the expenditure.
  - WestSeattleBadTakes June 27, 2023 (11:35 am)
    
    Those are indeed interesting questions. Nuanced questions that the comment I replied to does nothing to engage with. You see, when someone posts a comment like this they are not considering any nuanced questions, how do I know? Because a thoughtful person who has grappled with these questions wouldn’t post this comment.
    
    Now, I don’t owe a nuanced response to anyone especially someone that is clearly incapable of processing it. That said, I did hope someone would chime in regarding these questions, so here we are.
    
    how does society realistically deal with the costs associated with the bad choices of an individual?
    
    With a multi-pronged approach that recognizes the complexity at play. “Bad choice” is doing a lot of work here, but I’ll assume you understand the varied nature of these issues. Bad choices are made for a variety of reasons; poor incentive structures, injustice, poor education… among a wide variety of other reasons.
    
    Your desire is to place it all on the individual while simultaneously recognizing that we do in fact live in a society. This failure in analysis leads you to breathalyzers as the only solution. This is a failure in your ability to incorporate factors outside of personal responsibility – for example how our society leads people to “bad choices” which we then seek to punish the individual for.
    
    Now, you may think to yourself “you’re just making excuses.” If you’re not, I applaud you. But to address it, we can hold that individuals should be held accountable while also asking ourselves what we (society) could have done better. The inability of our citizens to do this is one of the reason we’re in this position today – a position that leaves us essentially powerless.
    
    To be clear, I am not against breathalyzers, they may well be a potential tool, but this treats the symptom not the core problem. I implore you to ask other questions such as; why are people getting so drunk and then driving afterward? Reject your reactionary answers and tendencies. If you find yourself only saying “because that person is X” you’ve failed yourself and you’ve failed these two children.
    
    Why is it that we assume the risk of these costs?
    
    Because we live in a society.
    
    Do we find ways to aggressively go after those that may have contributed to this? Those that served him alcohol? The seller of pot? The provider of the vehicle?
    
    Maybe? It depends on the circumstances.
    
    I, for one, don’t care for paying the moral hazards incurred by others
    
    Which moral hazards exactly? Only the ones that personally concern you? Would it be universally applicable? Do we also structure society to help people avoid those moral hazards? This is an incredibly complex topic that you’ve reduced to your personal preference.
    
    Good to know you agree with the original commenter as well.
    
    All of these questions that you could have used yourself to guide your thoughts and all you can produce is this?
    
    Unfortunately, if you extend this logically, the only conclusion is mandatory breathalyzer locks for all vehicles.
    
    Just a complete failure of analysis. You’ve added nothing to the discussion. In your own sanctimony you’ve done no better than the original commenter.
    
    I’ll call out reactionary thinking as I see fit. Sometimes it may be a quick response and sometimes it will be longer. It is largely based on whether I think the commenter can be moved beyond their reactionary thinking.
    
    I’ve spent more time on my response here because I found it interesting that you thought you were moving the discussion forward, only to completely fail with your own version of simplistic thinking. So much so, you thought you had provided the answer.