SALINA — Following a full-day evidentiary preliminary hearing in Saline County District Court March 10, Kayla Errebo, 33, Lorraine, who faces multiple charges in connection with a fatal crash that took place Aug. 8 in Saline County, received the judge’s ruling on the morning of March 11.

Saline County Judge Amy Norton ruled there was sufficient evidence for Errebo to be bound over to stand trial. She’s charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence, aggravated battery, failure to stop at an accident, reckless driving, improper driving and operating a car without a required interlock device.

After hearing evidence, the judge bound Errebo over for trial on an amended complaint in CF-2025CR-000497, which includes the added charges of interference with law enforcement and aggravated battery while driving under the influence.

According to the complaint, the crash happened at around 5:30 a.m. Aug. 8 at K-140 and Reese Road, just east of Brookville. The Saline County Sheriff ’s Office said Errebo was driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee westbound and entered the eastbound lane, where her vehicle collided head-on with a Chevy pickup. A passenger in the pickup, 55-year-old Deanna “June” Sommerfeld, Brookville, died at the scene. The 61-year-old driver, Mark Sommerfeld, was hospitalized with serious injuries, including a broken femur.

Norton took the bench at 9:30 a.m.

March 11, and gave lengthy reasoning for her ruling.

“The purpose of a preliminary hearing is for the court to determine whether or not the state has submitted sufficient evidence to establish probable cause as to each element of the charges listed in the third amended complaint,” Norton said. “Because it is a preliminary hearing, the standard is that all inferences or discrepancies in the evidence must be resolved in the light most favorable to the state. Rather than going through each charge and each element, this court feels a better approach is to address this as a series of interconnected questions.”

Norton stated the first question before the court.

“The first is that the state has established, as required, for several of the charges, that the defendant was driving under the influence that night. There is no specific set of evidence, observation or level of intoxication or factors needed to be proven. Only, the state needs to establish sufficient probable cause that Ms. Errebo consumed alcohol to the point that she was unsafely able to operate a vehicle. Several witnesses testified and reported observing Ms. Errebo ordering and consuming multiple forms of alcoholic beverages from at least three different bars. It was testified that she consumed between four and eight drinks of being an alcoholic seltzer or a mixed drink with part alcohol in it. The alcohol was consumed for a period of approximately six hours or so and occurred in the hours before the collision. The testimony presented was that she texted multiple photographs of her drinks to different people. She respond- ed to a text message, ‘I know,’ and that was in response to a friend’s message, ‘if she did in fact continue driving that evening, she risked being arrested for driving under the influence.’

The judge continued with the evidence.

“Deputy (Brandon) Mosher testified he observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breath in the short hours after the collision when he picked her up from the county line. There was evidence that she told her grandfather she got in trouble for the crash. That she could be in trouble again and did not wish to be. And there are, in fact, the circumstances of the collision itself. Sometimes the collision itself can be proof that she was not able to safely operate a vehicle.”

Norton said that the collision report in evidence, as well as testimony by witnesses, indicated Errebo was in the wrong lane and made no attempts to brake.

“The court finds under the totality of the circumstances this evidence is sufficient to establish that Ms. Errebo was driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that she could not safely operate her vehicle.”

The second question the judge addressed was whether Errebo caused the collision. The judge said the collusion report concludes that she was.

“Even without these reports, the court heard testimony from Mr. Sommerfeld that was uncontested that when he looked up, approximately 100 feet away, he observed the defendant’s vehicle entirely in his lane, and he also testified that her driver’s side tires were already past the fog line towards his shoulder,” Norton said. “The state’s evidence in regards to the defendant’s phone downloads, the testimony from Mr. (Dennis) Katzenmeier and the testimony from Mr. (Colter) Dent and the defendant’s statements made to those individuals who testified established that Errebo was the driver and that she acknowledged that she was in part responsible for the collision. The statement that she made to Mr. Dent and Mr. Katzenmeier was that she looked down, then looked back up, and there was a car in front of her. The court will also note that she told her grandfather that she understood she was the cause of the crash and that was the reason why she fled the scene was she worried about being in more trouble and that she planned to report her car stolen to avoid her responsibility.”

The third question before the court was whether or not the crash was the proximate cause of the injury to Mark Sommerfeld and the death of Deanna “June” Sommerfeld. Norton stated that the coroner’s report established that Deanna Sommerfeld died of blunt force trauma caused by or received during the crash, and that Mark Sommerfeld’s testimony indicates his injuries were received from the crash.

The fourth question the judge addressed was whether the defendant’s conduct and actions sufficiently arose to the level to be called reckless as an element for at least one of the charges.

“Reckless is defined as when a person consciously disregards a substantial or unjustifiable risk,” Norton said. “And this disregard of that risk constitutes a gross deviation from a standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in that situation.”

The court found that it was established that Errebo had a prior diversion, attended drug and alcohol information school, had been warned about driving that night and had responded to that warning through text messaging.

“The court finds that the testimony establishes that Ms. Errebo disregarded that risk. She chose to drive, even though her text message shows ‘I don’t know why the DUI girl is the driver’ and that she understood what she was risking if she was caught. These text messages were sent at approximately 2 a.m. and the testimony and GPS data from the cell phone indicated she drove for the next three hours. The court believes that reasonable people would not ignore this risk.”

The final question before the court required a higher standard.

“The final question before the court is whether or not the defendant’s actions rise to the much higher level needed for count one, murder in the second degree. That charge requires the state to establish probable cause that the defendant acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life,” Norton said.

The judge referenced the standards set forth in the Kansas Court of Appeals case of State v. Doub, 32 Kan App. 2d. 1075.

“It requires another different level of culpability than mere recklessness. In fact, this sort of allegation was called a ‘depraved heart murder,’” she said.

Norton said the factors listed in Doub are intoxication, speeding, other actual or near miss driving incidents or collisions shortly before the fatal collision, driving on the wrong side of the road, failure to heed traffic signs, failure to heed prior warnings against driving, prior record of driving offenses and failure to stop and render aid.

Doub does not require all these factors to be present in a particular case to find it meets that level of extreme indifference.

“The court finds that nearly all of those factors are, in fact, present here and have been established by the state’s evidence and testimony,” Norton said. “She was specifically warned by her friend approximately three hours before the collision. She acknowledged that risk. She had a history of driving offenses. She does nearly roll into the car in front of her at the Pancho’s drivethrough line. She was on the wrong side of the road as established by Mr. Sommerfeld’s testimony, and the collision report, that she failed to stop and render aid, even when she knew or very much suspected she had very much seriously hurt at least one individual and fled the scene. Based on the Doub decision and the evidence presented by the state, this court finds the state has shown sufficient probable cause.”

Errebo’s next court appearance will be for District Court arraignment at 1:30 p.m. May 4 in Saline County District Court, Room 301. She currently remains incarcerated in the Saline County Detention Center.