During the preliminary hearing for Peterson Drew Matheson in the case of Road Rage which resulted in the death of two individuals on June 4th, 2023 Judge Robert Lund ordered the counsel for the defense and the prosecution to submit simultaneous briefings no later than October 27, 2023.
On October 27, 2023, the State filed its brief on the bindover decision to the court. A bindover decision brief is a brief provided by the prosecution that gives the reasons why the defendant should be subjected to a trial as a result of the findings of the preliminary hearing. The defense has also filed its memorandum in opposition to bindover.
The main purpose of these documents is to illustrate the finding or lack of probable cause during the preliminary hearing to hold the defendant to answer the charges at trial.
Charges
When charges are made, there is what is called an information delivered to the defendant. This information contains the charges that are being brought against the individual. The information in this case has the following charges.
- Count 1 – Manslaughter – Second Degree Felony
- Count 2 – Manslaughter – Second Degree Felony
- Count 3 – Negligently Operating a Vehicle Resulting in Death – Second Degree Felony
- Count 4 – Negligently Operating a Vehicle Resulting in Death – Second Degree Felony
- Count 5 – Reckless Driving – Class B Misdemeanor
- Count 6 – Following Too Close – Infraction
- Count 7 – Failure to Stay in One Lane – Infraction
The information also contains the probable cause statement from the Deputy from the Utah County Sheriff’s Office. The following is taken from that document.
“On June 4, 2023 at approximately 12:30 pm in Eagle Mountain, Utah, officers
were dispatched to a report of a traffic collision. Officers found three vehicles
involved in the incident; a white 2016 Ford F-150 pickup truck (“the white
truck”), a 1987 Porsche 911 Carrera (“the Porsche”), and a white 2014 Nissan
Maxima (“the Maxima”). Defendant was the driver of the white truck. Defendant
was traveling eastbound on SR-73 when he crossed into incoming traffic and
struck the Porsche head on. The adult male driver and the adult female passenger
of the Porsche were pronounced deceased at the scene. The front end of the
Porsche was completely destroyed and had serious damage up into the passenger
compartment. Defendant was transported to the hospital due to injuries sustained
in the crash. The driver of the Maxima did not sustain significant injuries. A
fourth vehicle was damaged when it struck debris from the crash.
Several witnesses reported that Defendant and the driver of the Maxima had been
involved in what appeared to be a road rage incident shortly before the collision.
One witness, who was driving immediately in front of Defendant and the
Maxima eastbound on SR-73, reported that he had stopped at the intersection of
SR-73 and Eagle Mountain Blvd., and that the white truck and the Maxima were
directly behind him at the stop sign. The witness reported that after making the
eastbound turn on SR-73 from Eagle Mountain Blvd., the Maxima turned into
the merge lane and the white truck turned directly into the regular travel lane in
what appeared to be an attempt to pass the Maxima. The road has a short merge
lane and then is a single lane in each direction in this area. The witness reported
that the Maxima sped up and began to merge out into the roadway, preventing
the white truck from passing him on the left. The witness reported that after the
Maxima merged into the regular lane of travel, the white truck swerved over to
the right of the Maxima, driving on the shoulder of the road in what appeared to
be an attempt to pass the Maxima on the right. The witness estimated the initial
speed at 65-70 miles per hour. The witness stated that he and his wife were both
concerned because of how close both the Maxima and the white truck were to the
witness’ vehicle.
Dash cam footage from a passing motorist shows the Maxima travelling in the
eastbound travel lane. The white truck is travelling in the same direction, parallel
to the Maxima but is off the roadway on the right shoulder of the highway. It
appears that the rear driver’s side tire of the white truck is by the passenger side
door of the Maxima and that the white truck is attempting to pass the Maxima on
the right. The driver’s side tires of the white truck are completely off the
roadway to the right of the fog line. Both the Maxima and the white truck appear
to be travelling at a high rate of speed and are just one vehicle length behind the
witness’ vehicle which is travelling in the same direction. The witness stated that
the Maxima and the truck bumped into each other at least two times. The witness
stated that it looked like the driver of the white truck started to lose control and
swerved slightly farther out onto the shoulder. It then appeared that the driver of
the white truck over corrected to keep from crashing on the shoulder and
swerved sharply behind the Maxima into oncoming traffic, where it struck the
Porsche.
The driver of the Maxima reported that the white truck was tailgating the
Maxima on SR-73 uncomfortably close. The driver of the Maxima stated that he
tapped his brakes to show disapproval and heard a horn honk behind him. The
driver of the Maxima reported that the white truck pulled up to drive on the
shoulder of the road next to the Maxima. The driver of the Maxima estimated
that the white truck was travelling 60-65 miles per hour. The driver of the
Maxima stated that he saw the white truck speed up so the driver of the Maxima
“closed the distance” with the vehicle in front of him to “about a Suburban’s
length.” The driver of the Maxima stated that the white truck moved left into the
Maxima’s lane and the driver’s side of the truck struck the passenger side of the
Maxima. The driver of the Maxima stated that he slowed and the white truck
spun to the left in front of the Maxima and into the westbound lanes where the
white truck struck the Porsche. Deputies saw paint transfer and a large amount of
black tire marks on the passenger side of the Maxima and driver’s side of the
white truck, consistent with the Maxima driver’s statement. Other witnesses
stated that it appeared that the white truck was trying to make a left hand turn
when it crossed into oncoming traffic.
Defendant’s car was searched and officers found a gun in the center console.
On July 6, 2023, a forensic toxicology final report shows that the driver of the
white truck, Peterson Drew Matheson, had a measurable amount of THC and the
primary metabolite of THC in his body at the time of the traffic collision.”
States Points
- Counts 1-2: Sufficient Evidence was presented during Preliminary Hearing
“Defendant’s behavior was far more than a gross deviation from the standard of care – the standard of care, at very least, would be to keep his vehicle on the road. But not only did Defendant avoid that, he rammed the Nissan… This created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the Nissan occupants and others on the roadway. There certainly was no legitimate justification for his actions.”
- Counts 3-4: Sufficient Evidence was presented during Preliminary Hearing
“The State has already explained how the evidence shows recklessness in this case… The evidence also showed that Defendant had a measurable amount of THC in his body at the time.”
“The evidence at the preliminary hearing showed a troubling and outrageous driving
pattern by Defendant where he tailgated the Nissan and the Kia, he repeatedly tried to pass the
Nissan, he drove off the road and onto the shoulder to try and pass the Nissan, he rammed the
Nissan, and eventually swerved across his lane of traffic and into the oncoming lane where he
crashed into the Mr. Salm and Ms. Himmelberger’s vehicle and tragically killed them both. This
evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preliminary hearing standard of probable cause that he
recklessly caused the death of these individuals. Inherent in that conclusion is that the evidence
is also sufficient to show that he negligently caused their deaths. He also had THC in his blood,
satisfying the elements of the alternative charges of counts 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Court
should bind over all counts.”
Defense Points
“There is a dearth of evidence, even under the limited standard of probable cause, to conclude that Mr. Matheson was reckless, as required by counts 1 and 2, or criminally negligent, as required by counts 3 and 4, and that those behaviors caused the deaths charged in those counts. At the outset, Mr. Matheson was operating his vehicle
in a lawful manner.”
“Mr. Nott could shed no light on who initiated the contact but what is clear is that after the second contact, Mr. Matheson, in rapid sequence, separated from the Nissan, slowed, lost control, veered into oncoming traffic, and the fatal collision occurred. Mr. Matheson was neither reckless nor criminally negligent, he was driving his truck in a lawful manner when according to Mr. Nott he was assaulted by the Nissan driver. He attempted to evade that driver and continue on his path. There is no evidence he initiated the collision that caused him to lose control of his truck and veer into the other lane. There certainly is evidence that if he had not been attacked by the Nissan driver there would have been no accident. In the absence of any evidence that he was criminally negligent or reckless, the first four counts must be dismissed.”
What happens next?
Now the judge has to decide if there is enough evidence to meet the burden of probable cause. If the judge feels there is probable cause, then a court date will be set and this case will either go to trial or will be settled with a plea deal.
According to the Utah Courts website, “If the judge finds probable cause that the defendant committed the crime, the defendant is bound over for trial. If the judge concludes there is insufficient evidence, the case is dismissed.”
Supporting Documents
Mike Kieffer is an IT geek by hobby and trade, with a BS in Information Systems & Technology. He is a proud father of 10, a grandpa, an author, a journalist, and internet publisher. His motto is to “Elevate, Inspire and Inform”, and he is politically conservative and a Christian. Mike has a passion for technology, writing, and helping others. With a wealth of experience, he is committed to sharing his knowledge with others to help them reach their full potential. He is known for his jackassery or his form of self-expression that encourages boldness, creativity, and risk-taking. It can be a way to push the boundaries and challenge traditional norms, leading to creative solutions and positive change.