Steinbach woman sentenced for drunk driving crash with infant daughter on board

A Steinbach woman involved in a single-vehicle crash on June 14, 2024 was given a four-month conditional sentence, a two-year driving prohibition and $3,500 fine for “a series of bad decisions” at a court date on June 19.

Miriam Stoll, who is pregnant with her next child, appeared before Judge Stacey Cawley to receive the sentence for her guilty plea. Stoll, who was supported by her pastor and several members of her prayer group was visibly distraught and expressed her deep shame and remorse to the court for her actions.

The single-vehicle crash occurred as Stoll was travelling northbound on Highway 12, at speeds the police estimate to have been between 134 and 154 km/h, when her infant daughter began to fuss in the back seat and she lost control of the vehicle as she tried to comfort the child while she drove.

The crash, which had multiple witnesses, sent Stoll and her vehicle into the right-hand ditch and then rolled the vehicle back over the highway and into the left-hand ditch, coming to a stop on the vehicle’s roof. Bystanders recovered the infant found lying on the interior ceiling and cut Stoll from the smouldering wreckage.

Both were sent to Winnipeg’s Health Sciences Centre where tests, based on open alcohol containers and drug paraphernalia found inside the vehicle, revealed Stoll to be more than three times over the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle.

Although the Crown said it remains unclear whether Stoll’s daughter was properly secured inside, the infant suffered no serious or long-term injuries. However, Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Neufeld said it’s not just about the result. “The consequences are simply a matter of luck. That’s why I am not giving a lot of credit to the fact that she got lucky,” she said.

Defence attorney Leonard Tailleur said at the time of the incident, Stoll was suffering from postpartum depression, was involved in an abusive relationship and experiencing suicidal thoughts compounded by substance abuse.

“At times I was thinking about hitting a tree with the car. I hated myself for being lazy. For where I found myself,” Stoll told the court.

Tailleur added that since then, Stoll has dramatically turned her life around, becoming of great service to her community and that a pre-sentencing report found her to be at low risk of reoffending.

“With changes in respect to her relationship to her now husband, her positive relationship to her experiences at home and in the community; she’s a positive influence in the community. She gives volunteer work at the soup kitchen. She also is working with Adult and Teen Challenge there as well, all which indicate a very strong likelihood of rehabilitation,” said Tailleur.

Neufeld was concerned about other factors.

“Aggravating this case, of course, is the very high blood alcohol reading of three times the legal limit. Having a child as a passenger is also statutorily aggravating because she had a 9-month-old in the car. The speed and manner in which she was driving is aggravating.”

While acknowledging the steps and responsibility Stoll has taken, Neufeld added, “The accident could have caused her to go over multiple lanes of traffic, which could have exposed other people to being hit by a rolling vehicle. There is much about this that is aggravating.”

Judge Stacy Cawley ultimately refused considerations of postpartum depression as a mitigating factor in the near tragedy and drawing on her years of experience with the Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court, instructed Stoll that her issues with alcohol were going to be a life-long challenge, needing the beneficial lifestyle changes Stoll had now made to be permanent.

“You accepted only that you have a drinking problem. Can you see that? I just want to caution you that when it comes to addiction, it’s a lifelong recovery journey. I understand. And if you look at it like a disease, and that is how you should look at it, then it’s always something that you need to respect,” warned Cawley.

But, for the judge, sentencing came down to the issue of deterrence for those that may choose to drive while impaired.

“Deterrence has to be the primary principle. There may be an argument to some degree that specific deterrence is not as necessary here as it might be in some other cases. But I don’t think we can forget about the need for general deterrence and denunciation of these decisions that she made,” said Cawley when imposing the conditional sentence.

“I accept and conclude after everything I’ve read, that you have very strong rehabilitative prospects. And why do I say that? Because of all the support you have here with you today. Not just physically in this room, and I see a lot of people in the room for you, but the changes you are making.”