A retrial began in the County Court of Victoria two weeks ago, with both the crown prosecutor and defence counsel giving their closing addresses to the jury on Wednesday.

The reason for the retrial cannot be released due to legal reasons.

An indictment, seen by The Courier, shows Nathan Leigh White, 40, is charged with culpable driving causing death and an alternate charge of driving in a dangerous manner causing the death of Patrick Bell.

The 17-year-old was a pedestrian on Chisholm Street when he was struck in June 2015.

White, who is currently on bail, appeared in the dock at the court.

In his closing address, crown prosecutor Damien Hannan argued the prosecution had proven the accused had driven his Holden Commodore "in a grossly negligent way, such that it caused the death of young Patrick Bell".

He said his driving "fell so far short of the standard a reasonable person would have exercised and invited a high risk of death or really serious injury that it can only be determined to constitute negligence of a high order, gross order or gross negligence".

To support the argument of gross negligence, he told the court White should not have driven at all that night given he had been drinking and it had rendered him incapable of having proper control of his car.

"He made the decision to drive at a blood alcohol concentration level approaching, if not over, double the limit," Mr Hannan said.

He said the preliminary breath test conducted 15 minutes after the collision returned a reading of between .009 and .115 and the subsequent evidentiary breath test conducted about 1.5 hours later returned a reading of .101.

He said during the trial Dr Angela Sungaila had stated it was a "fair assumption" that White's body was still absorbing alcohol in the time between the initial breath test at 12.17am and the later test conducted at 1.37am given the two readings were so similar despite the gap in time.

"So my submission is you can have no doubt he was affected by alcohol, and especially at that level, it is a very important part of the prosecution case."

The court heard that as the blood alcohol concentration of a person rises and functions are subsequently impaired, so too does the risk of collision.

Mr Hannan said these results, coupled with the calculations of experts, proved White had "conducted himself in a grossly negligent way".

He said White's level of intoxication meant he was "incapable of properly controlling the car", exacerbated by the fact he was "driving way too fast in the circumstances".

These circumstances include it being dark, that he had been driving on a narrow street with a sharp bend and that there was an uphill rise just before where the collision took place.

Mr Hannan also stated the road, Chisholm Street, was a suburban area where one would expect pedestrians to be and that the accused had himself said he knew the section of road to be dangerous.

"Those were some of the factors supporting the argument that he breached his duty to drive as a prudent, reasonable driver taking due care and attention in all of the circumstances."

While one expert gave evidence her calculations led her to conclude White had been travelling about 97km/h before slowing to about 71km/h when striking Bell, another believed he had been travelling between 55 and 87km/h at the time of impact.

Mr Hannan said the jury must compare the accused's conduct with how a reasonable, sober person would have acted in the circumstances.

"This was a road that was deserving of reasonable care and attention at night.

"To be able to travel along in a safe and proper manner requires the attention of a reasonable person travelling at an appropriate speed without the inhibiting effects of alcohol.

"None of that occurred here - what occurred here is the exact opposite."

Defence barrister, Philip Skehan, said his client was "very sorry" for what happened.

He outlined three reasons for why the jury should acquit White on both charges.

The first was that his BAC could be taken at the lower end of the PBT reading, that his speed could have been as low as 55km/h and that he had taken evasive action in order to try to avoid Bell.

The court heard White had told investigators he had tried to "dodge" Bell and in doing so lost control of his car.

"While you are not allowed to drive unless under .05, that's not what needs to be determined here - that's a different area of law. He is not being tried for exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol to drive," Mr Skehan told the jury.

He said his client was facing "two very serious charges" that included an allegation of not being in control of his car and therefore putting members of the public at risk of serious injury or death.

Mr Skehan submitted White had reacted quickly and had taken "evasive action" to avoid Bell.

"Not one of us could expect a boy being in the middle of the road at that point in time.

"What he's done shows you he has proper control of the vehicle and has taken evasive action by trying to steer away from him.

"The front [of the car] missed him but the car started spinning and rotating and that's what hit him.

"He's done his best and I suggest nobody sober could have done better."

If you are seeing this message you are a loyal digital subscriber to The Courier, as we made this story available only to subscribers. Thank you very much for your support and allowing us to continue telling Ballarat's story. We appreciate your support of journalism in our great city.