Reckless driving conviction affirmed

Where appellant was convicted of reckless driving after he failed to negotiate a curve, causing his 18-wheel truck with a load of hogs to flip on its side, a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that the crash was a result of appellant’s recklessness.

Analysis

“Multiple factors may indicate recklessness, ‘includ[ing] erratic driving, “the likelihood of injury to other users of the highways,” lack of control of the vehicle, driving in excess of the speed limit, “dangerous driving behavior,” intoxication, and noncompliance with traffic markers.’ …

“Thus, although the ‘[t]he mere happening of an accident does not give rise to an inference of reckless driving,’ the specific facts and circumstances that lead to and cause the accident often will. …

“Here, the evidence was sufficient, ‘without resort to speculation and conjecture,’ for the trial court to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. …

“Two witnesses, with two different vantage points, saw appellant driving fast immediately before overturning, indicating that appellant was speeding. Officer DeLugo testified that the tire marks left on the road from appellant’s truck indicated that appellant did not use his brakes prior to the crash.

“Based on these facts, and the accident itself, a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer that the crash was a result of appellant’s recklessness.

“And even if appellant did not exceed the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour, the evidence supports the conclusion that he was certainly travelling too fast for the highway conditions.

“Both Watson and Ambrose, who were travelling in significantly smaller cars, perceived appellant to be driving fast as he approached the bend in the road. Appellant did not use his brakes to reduce his speed before attempting to navigate that curve.

“As a result, he could not maintain control of his 18-wheel transport truck, filled with heavy cargo, thus veering off the right-hand side of the road and overturning.

“The totality of these circumstances evinced appellant’s ‘disregard … for the consequences of his act[ions]’ and provided a sufficient basis for the trial court to conclude he drove at a speed or in a manner that endangered the life, limb, or property of any person. … Therefore, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that appellant drove recklessly.’”

Affirmed.

Jones v. City of Suffolk, Record No. 0806-21-1, May 16, 2023. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Huff). From the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk (Savage III). James L. Grandfield for appellant. Heather Emmert for appellee. VLW 023-7-172, 5 pp.