 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Runnels1/23/1989
rejudicial error in finding appellant guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide when at the very best the prosecutor's recitation of the facts establishes only negligence, not recklessness."
The appellant's final assignment of error contends that the prosecutor's recitation of facts, as set forth by the prosecutor as the basis for the appellant's no contest plea, failed to establish the element of recklessness required to sustain a conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide. This assignment of error is meritless.
"Reckless conduct" is defined in R.C. 2901.22(C):
"(C) A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indif-
ference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist."
Evidence that a defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to support a finding of recklessness. See State v. Kavlich (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 240, 243-245, 515 N.E.2d 652, 654-656; State v. Stinson, supra; State v. Dudock (1983), 6 Ohio App.3d 64, 6 OBR 502, 453 N.E.2d 1124.
In the case before us, the prosecutor's recitation of facts included the statement that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the automobile collision at issue. The arresting officer had noted on his report that at the time of the accident Runnels was extremely incapacitated by alcohol. The appellant's blood alcohol level was determined to be .21 percent. The appellant pled no contest to the charge that she had been driving under the influence of alcohol.
Accordingly, we overrule the appellant's sixth assignment of error.
Judgment affirmed.
Patton, P.J., and Dyke, J., concur.
|