 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Remmers12/17/2004
Defendant appeals from his conviction of reckless driving (K.S.A. 8-1566 ). He contends the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction (State v. Remmers, No. 89,721, unpublished opinion filed January 9, 2004). The case is before us on petition for review.
FACTS
On May 16, 2001, at approximately 11:15 a.m., defendant was driving east on 310th Street in rural Marion County. At the intersection with north Quail Creek Road, defendant ran a stop sign and his vehicle collided with a service truck being operated by Eldon Smith. Smith's truck was knocked sideways, rolled down the ditch, and caught fire. As a result, defendant was charged with reckless driving and, after a bench trial, was found guilty, fined $500, sentenced to 90 days in jail, and assessed court costs. He was granted probation from the jail time.
Defendant told the police officer at the time of the accident that he was not sure which direction the other vehicle had been traveling. He further informed the officer that he was not paying attention and that he "had his head up his ass." The terrain at the location of the accident is flat, it was a clear day, and there were no obstructions to prevent defendant from seeing the other vehicle.
The sole issue continues to be whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, Syl. 2, 67 P.3d 121 (2003).
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends something more than evidence of inattentive driving is required to support his conviction of reckless driving.
K.S.A. 8-1566(a), criminalizing reckless driving, is found under the heading "SERIOUS TRAFFIC OFFENSES" and reads as follows: "Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."
PIK Crim. 3d 70.04 sets forth the requirements of K.S.A. 8-1566(a):
"RECKLESS DRIVING
"The defendant is charged with the crime of reckless driving. The defendant pleads not guilty.
"To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved:
1. That the defendant was driving a vehicle;
2. That the defendant was driving in a reckless manner; and
3. That this act occurred on or about [a specific day in a specific county of] Kansas.
"Reckless means driving a vehicle under circumstances that show a realization of the imminence of danger to another person or the property of another where there is a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger." (Emphasis added.)
The meaning of "reckless" in the PIK is in accord with how that term is defined under our criminal intent statute. K.S.A. 21-3201 states:
"(c) Reckless conduct is conduct done under circumstances that show a realization of the imminence of danger to the person of another and a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger. The terms 'gross negligence,' 'culpable negligence,' 'wanton negligence' and 'wantonness' are included within the term 'recklessness' as used in this code."
The Court of Appeals held:
"After a careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that defendant's indifference to the conseq
Page 1 2 3 Kansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|