Sufficiency of the evidence for reckless driving causing death & reckless driving causing serious impairment of a body function convictions; People v Otto; People v Carll; Miles per hour (mph); Crash Data Retrieval (CDR)

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of reckless driving causing death and reckless driving causing serious impairment of a body function, the court affirmed. She contended the evidence “was insufficient to establish that her driving was reckless and caused the fatal accident.” The court disagreed. She asserted that it was not “because she was traveling close to the 35 [mph] speed limit at the time of the collision. Defendant testified to that effect at trial and, on appeal, she” pointed to an eyewitness’s (F) testimony as further support. But F did not “testify that she ‘was certain that [defendant’s] vehicle was not traveling more than 5 to 15 miles over the posted speed limit.’ Rather, [F] estimated that defendant’s vehicle was ‘at least going 40 to 50,’ and that ‘it was pretty fast to the point where it caught my attention and my car was not even facing that way. I seen them traveling very fast.’” In addition, the court found that “the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that defendant was traveling not in the range of 40 to 50 [mph], but instead at a much higher rate of speed. Evidence to this effect included: that the speedometer stick on [her] vehicle was found to be pointed at 101 [mph] following the collision; that the CDR precrash data indicated that the speed of [her] vehicle in the moments prior to the collision ranged from 104 to 106 [mph]; that the vehicles’ respective changes in speed upon collision and post-collision conditions were indicative of speeds higher than 40 to 50 [mph]; and that the gas station video camera did not pick up defendant’s vehicle until the collision because it ‘was moving too fast’ to be visible in the pre-collision footage.” The trial evidence also showed not only that she “was traveling at a very high rate of speed at the time of the collision, but that she ran through a red light while doing so.” Thus, the court held that the evidence “was more than sufficient to permit the jury to rationally conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was driving ‘in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’” The record also made it “clear that there was ample evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant’s reckless driving caused the fatal accident.”