During her latest day in court, Haley changed her plea to no contest on one DUI and in exchange, the district attorney dropped the second DUI charge along with the hit-and-run charge.

So, it could have been worse.

https://www.justjared.com/2024/04/29/general-hospital-actress-haley-pullos-receives-jail-time-following-dui-arrest/?=morehere

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13364051/General-Hospital-star-Haley-Pullos-months-jail-DUI-crash.html

 

Got away lightly if u ask me and I know no one asked lol

3 minutes ago, AMCOLTLLover said:

Got away lightly if u ask me and I know no one asked lol

You're only speaking the truth! Getting the judge to dismiss the hit-and-run?!!! Imagine. 

Having lost a relative to a person that was driving under the influence - 3 months is nothing. This is a joke of a ruling. If it was up to me - no less than a year. People should think twice before they put others' lives in risk with their behavior.  .08 BAC is WELL enough to impair.

5 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Getting the judge to dismiss the hit-and-run?!!! Imagine. 

Reading the whole story, the hit-and-run part of the charge was actually for her hitting a parked car just before she got into the accident, so it wasn't that she hit the injured driver and then ran. She couldn't have since her car was destroyed.

"Also dismissed was a hit-and-run charge resulting from Pullos running into a parked car just before the freeway crash. But though prosecutors dropped that count, she will still have to pay restitution to the owner of the car she damaged."

13 minutes ago, JAS0N47 said:

Reading the whole story, the hit-and-run part of the charge was actually for her hitting a parked car just before she got into the accident, so it wasn't that she hit the injured driver and then ran. She couldn't have since her car was destroyed.

"Also dismissed was a hit-and-run charge resulting from Pullos running into a parked car just before the freeway crash. But though prosecutors dropped that count, she will still have to pay restitution to the owner of the car she damaged."

After the hit-and-run she proceeded to drive on the freeway at an extreme speed, lost control & her car jumped a 2 foot barrier & was then driving the wrong way toward oncoming traffic. One car swerved to avoid her & the car immediately behind was the car she hit & both her car & that car were destroyed then. 

Her car had to be moving at a high speed to create the final accident. I'm just spit-balling here but perhaps the hit-and-run was the first car, which swerved but was hit a glancing blow. 

There seems to be a considerable problem in this late reporting of what actually happened. 

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by Contessa Donatella
make clear

10 hours ago, JAS0N47 said:

Reading the whole story, the hit-and-run part of the charge was actually for her hitting a parked car just before she got into the accident, so it wasn't that she hit the injured driver and then ran. She couldn't have since her car was destroyed.

"Also dismissed was a hit-and-run charge resulting from Pullos running into a parked car just before the freeway crash. But though prosecutors dropped that count, she will still have to pay restitution to the owner of the car she damaged."

 

10 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

I'm just spit-balling here but perhaps the hit-and-run was the first car, which swerved but was hit a glancing blow. 

No.

What Jason said is what was reported from last year.  The first accident (the hit-and-run) where she hit the parked car, was on the city streets of Pasadena a little while before she entered the freeway.   The first car wasn't on the freeway at all.

The only confusion in reporting is from outlets rushing to give updates on her sentencing deal, without actually reading the original reports.

When emergency responders (police/ambulance/etc) arrived at the at the scene of the freeway accident, they extricated her and attended to her, attended to the driver whose vehicle she crashed into, and the destroyed vehicles.  She was brought to the hospital etc.   At some point later that night/day, or within a few minutes/hours/days later, the police realized she'd hit the first car  in a completely separate incident just before she entered the freeway.  So then they charged her with both accidents. 

But yeah the original reports always said the first vehicle she hit was stationary or parked.

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by janea4old

2 hours ago, janea4old said:

 

No.

What Jason said is what was reported from last year.  The first accident (the hit-and-run) where she hit the parked car, was on the city streets of Pasadena a little while before she entered the freeway.   The first car wasn't on the freeway at all.

The only confusion in reporting is from outlets rushing to give updates on her sentencing deal, without actually reading the original reports.

When emergency responders (police/ambulance/etc) arrived at the at the scene of the freeway accident, they extricated her and attended to her, attended to the driver she it, and the destroyed vehicles.  She was brought to the hospital etc.   At some point later that night/day, or within a few minutes/hours/days later, the police realized she'd hit the first car  in a completely separate incident just before she entered the freeway.  So then they charged her with both accidents. 

But yeah the original reports always said the first vehicle she hit was stationary or parked.

I have no problem at all with this description of events regarding the hit-and-run. My point was that her car was not disabled at that point & I gave an accurate description of the wrong way, head-on crash which was the most serious part of the entire thing. If that is cleared up now, I am fine with how it stands.