 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ashley v. State8/18/2000
The parties agree that reckless driving requires something more than mere negligence in the operation of a vehicle. The state also concedes that the occurrence of an accident by itself does not give rise to an inference of reckless driving. But the state relies on the circumstantial evidence in this case - specifically, evidence that alcohol had been consumed in the vehicle, the skid marks left by the truck, the damage to the vehicle, and the fact that the highway was relatively straight and dry. The state contends that this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, and combined with Trooper Lovejoy's analysis of the accident scene, is sufficient to support a conviction for reckless driving.
Ashley relies on several cases from other jurisdictions which hold that circumstantial evidence similar to the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to support a conviction for reckless driving. In essence, these courts hold that, in addition to proving that the driver was involved in an accident, the government must produce affirmative evidence that the driver contributed to that accident by an act of recklessness. As defined in AS 28.35.040, an act of recklessness is an act that creates so great a risk to persons or property "that the conscious disregard of [this risk] or a failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." If the evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the government) still leaves a reasonable possibility that the accident occurred with no act of recklessness on the part of the driver, then the government's evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for reckless driving.
For example, in Powers v. Commonwealth, the government presented evidence that the defendant's vehicle traveled an erratic course on a highway for more than 900 feet and then struck some adjacent trees with such force that the motor was wrenched from the vehicle. The highway at the site of the crash was level, dry black top; there was a slight curve in the road, but there were no defects in the pavement. The night was clear. In addition to this circumstantial evidence, the government relied on the testimony of a trooper who reconstructed the accident based on impressions left on the highway and the damage inflicted to the trees by the side of the road. The court held that this evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's reckless driving conviction. The court emphasized that no one (other than the driver) had witnessed the accident, and the court rejected the government's contention that the defendant's recklessness could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence. The court concluded that there was no way to determine precisely how or why the accident had happened, and that the government's evidence left " much to speculation and conjecture as to what caused defendant to lose control of the car."
Similarly, in State v. Roenicke, the defendant was convicted of reckless driving based on evidence that his car inexplicably swerved to the right, jumped a curb, and went down an embankment, where it landed upside down. The trooper who arrived at the scene talked to the defendant and concluded that he was under the influence of alcohol. Indeed, a blood sample taken at the hospital two hours after the accident showed that the defendant's blood alcohol level was over .10 percent. Nevertheless, the court held that this evidence was insufficient to sustain a reckless driving charge. The court noted that the one-car accident was not observed by a trooper or any other witness (save the defendant). Because the government's case was circumstantial, the co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|