Reckless driving Prosecution

Reckless Driving Prosecution California Vehicle Code Section 23103

To prove the defendant is guilty of reckless driving, the prosecution must prove that:

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an off street parking facility);AND
2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause damage.

Reckless Driving Causing Bodily Injury Prosecution California Vehicle Code section 23104

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an off-street parking facility);

2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property;

AND

3. Proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver.

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause damage.

The term highway describes any area publicly maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel, and includes a street.

An off-street parking facility is an off-street facility open for use by the public for parking vehicles. It includes a facility open to retail customers, where no fee is charged for parking.

Examples of when the court found that the defendant DID NOT commit reckless driving:

A pedestrian was crossing a highway and waving a fishing pole at the driver to get his attention. The driver did not slow down. The pedestrian shouted something at the driver as he drove by. The driver made a U turn and drove towards the pedestrian. The pedestrian had to jump out of the way thinking he would get hit. The defendant stopped where the pedestrian was standing and then put his car in reverse and left 10 feet of skid marks before turning his car around and driving off. The court found that this may have constituted negligence on the part of the driver, but it did not constitute a wanton disregard for safety of others. See People v. Allison (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d Supp. 932, 935.

Defendant’s car collided with a second car which had stopped and then backed up to permit another driver to make a turn at an intersection. There was no evidence that, before defendant tried to stop, he saw the other car and knew that the driver intended to back up, or that defendants speed was illegal. The most that could be said was that defendant perhaps failed to keep a proper lookout ahead and for that reason may have been negligent. Gross negligence is insufficient, by itself, to be considered reckless driving. See People v. McNutt (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d Supp. 835, 838–839.

Example of when the court found that the defendant DID commit reckless driving:

The court found that the defendant was guilty of reckless driving after a California Highway Patrol officer pursued the defendant for 4.3 miles at 7:45 p.m., during which chase the defendant drove at the rate of 75 to 80 miles an hour across intersections and passed nine cars. He passed approximately 12 more cars at a rate of speed varying from 75 to 85 miles per hour. The court looked at the surrounding circumstances to determine that speeding constituted reckless driving in this case. See People v. Nowell (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d Supp. 811, 813–814.