Two women who caused a chain-reaction crash on Interstate 75 in which one driver was killed have been found guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide.

A jury on Friday also found both Ivory Nicole Quinn, 32, and Sonya Latriese Kinney, 32, guilty of a second count of aggravated vehicular homicide; falsification; operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse or a combination; and driving under suspension.

Their cases were joined for the purpose of the three-day trial, and both sat at the defense table, flanked by their attorneys.

The jury also found Kinney, who was driving, guilty of a second OVI charge for having a blood alcohol content above 0.08. Her BAC was 0.102.

During the trial, it was disclosed that the women, who live in Toledo, had been drinking before leaving work.

Shortly after 10 p.m. on March 3, 2022, on Interstate 75 near North Baltimore, Quinn, who was the passenger, jerked the steering wheel causing the vehicle to hit the median. It came to rest in the left lane.

They said they were standing outside their Cadillac SUV for one or two minutes, but during that time didn’t turn on any hazard lights to warn approaching vehicles, said Wood County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Lara Rump.

They also made no effort to call 911, she said.

“What we had was a dark-colored vehicle, left abandoned in a lane of traffic on the interstate,” she said. “That conduct is what caused the chain of events that caused Brandy Houghtalling’s death.”

“Ms. Houghtalling had no time to react to that vehicle in the roadway,” Rump said.

Houghtalling, 34, Whitehouse, was driving a 2014 Ford Fusion northbound and struck the Cadillac and pushed it partially into the right lane.

Jamal Holmes, 49, Toledo, driving a 2010 Toyota Camry, struck Houghtalling’s car, causing both vehicles to spin out. The Camry came to rest against the concrete median barrier.

Holmes and his three passengers were transported to the Wood County Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, according to the crash report.

Houghtalling was pronounced dead at the scene after being removed from her vehicle by mechanical means.

One aggravated vehicle homicide charge was for Houghtalling’s death and the second was for recklessly causing the death.

It was reckless that Kinney was driving 83 mph while impaired, it was reckless for her to have a loose grip on the wheel, and it was reckless that Quinn grabbed the wheel, Rump said.

It was reckless they never turned on the hazard lights and it was reckless they stood there for one to two minutes without calling 911, she said.

They were dishonest from the start, as seen on in-car and body cameras, and even after they learned someone had died, they continued to be dishonest about what caused the crash, thus hindering the investigation, she said.

Aggravated vehicular homicide stipulates a defendant “did, while operating or participating in the operation of a motor vehicle, cause the death.”

Both caused Houghtalling’s death, and both are responsible under the law, Rump said.

Lawrence Gold, who defended Kinney, contended that his client was not operating the vehicle and thus the fact that she had been drinking was of no consequence.

The fact she had a suspended license also was of no consequence because she wasn’t driving, he said.

“We believe the evidence is insufficient in this matter,” Gold said.

Gold argued that simply touching the steering wheel does not cause a vehicle to accelerate.

“Did Miss Kinney’s actions cause the movement of Miss Quinn’s vehicle,” he asked.

The state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kinney operated the vehicle, he said, and that is not sufficient for a conviction of the charge of aggravated vehicle homicide.

He said the jury can’t base its decision on sympathy of Houghtalling, it’s got to be based on the evidence, he said.

Kent Sobran, who was Quinn’s attorney, said the disabled vehicle was no fault of his client.

She was driving home from work and something beyond her control occurred, he said.

“Miss Quinn has the presumption of innocence,” he said.

He reiterated testimony that Houghtalling was not wearing a seatbelt and was driving too close.

“The conduct of Brandy Houghtalling does not matter,” said Wood County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Brian Boos.

What matters is the defendants, drunkenly and recklessly caused the SUV to become disabled in the middle of a major highway, he said.

Had they not done that, Brandy Houghtalling would have made it home to her kids, he said.

What crash started this sequence of events: A crash that would have been avoided if they’d abided by their suspended license, Boos said.

Houghtalling, who was driving a couple of miles over the 70-mph limit, encountered a dark gray vehicle, with no illumination and no hazard lights in the middle of the highway at 10 p.m.

“Brandy never had a chance,” Boos said.

“’Existence of other causes is not a defense’ is the most important instruction in this case when you’re talking about causation,” he said.

“It’s not my fault she grabbed the wheel. I wasn’t driving” is not a defense, he said.

Quinn caused the crash by choosing to drive impaired, without a valid license, and going 83 mph in a 70 mph.

Jerking of the wheel by Kinney was an intervening cause and contact with the steering wheel constitutes operation of the vehicle, as defined by law.

They caused the crash together, which makes them legally responsible for the death of Brandy Houghtalling, he said.

“One or more can be operating the vehicle at the same time, that’s what happened and that’s why they’re both legally responsible,” he said.

It was not contested that both had driver’s licenses that had been suspended and both falsified statements to law enforcement.

It also wasn’t contested that Quinn had two prior OVI convictions.

Wood County Common Pleas Judge Matt Reger scheduled sentencing for Jan. 23.

Prior to the trial, Quinn had asked Reger to recuse himself as he was at the hospital when she was brought in for a blood draw after the crash.

Sobran argued that his client was uncomfortable with Reger presiding over the case because of this encounter and believed as a result she was being treated unfairly in the courtroom.

Reger dismissed the motion.

A second motion was filed by both defendants in which they requested statements made prior to receiving Miranda warnings be suppressed.

Video at the scene showed interrogations starting after Miranda rights were given and Reger denied this motion.