This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A juvenile, referred to as Child, was driving without a required parent or guardian present, as mandated by his driver's permit. On an unlit road with a 40 mph speed limit, Child drove between 96 and 104 mph, striking and killing a pedestrian. The vehicle's event data recorder showed no braking before the collision. Child was charged with homicide by vehicle, reckless driving, and restricted license violation (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Date (N/A): The district court dismissed Count 1 of the delinquency petition, which charged Child with homicide by vehicle, finding that the charge was based solely on speeding and could not support a prima facie case for reckless driving (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in dismissing the charge by misapplying the statute, disregarding circumstantial evidence of reckless driving, failing to consider the totality of circumstances, and deciding a factual issue reserved for the jury (para 1).
- Appellee (Child): Argued that the district court correctly dismissed the charge because the statute prohibits treating speeding as a per se violation of reckless driving (para 7).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in dismissing the homicide by vehicle charge by misapplying the statute and failing to consider circumstantial evidence of reckless driving?
- Is the question of whether Child drove recklessly a factual issue for the jury to decide?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the homicide by vehicle charge and remanded the case for reinstatement of the charge (para 1).
Reasons
Per Medina J. (Bogardus and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
The court found that the district court erred in dismissing the charge because the question of whether Child drove recklessly is a factual issue for the jury. The court emphasized that the statute prohibits relying solely on speeding as a per se violation of reckless driving, but the State presented additional circumstantial evidence, such as Child's driving without a guardian, the road conditions, and the lack of braking, which could support a finding of reckless driving. The court concluded that these factors should be considered by a jury under a totality of the circumstances approach (paras 5-15).