Opinion
Case No. 20040637-CA.
Filed May 19, 2005. Not For Official Publication.
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 031900667, The Honorable Ann Boyden.
Linda M. Jones and John D. O'Connell Jr., Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeanne B. Inouye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, Orme, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
William Donald Carter appeals his conviction of reckless endangerment after a jury trial. Carter argues the evidence was insufficient to show the required mens rea of recklessness.
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence "in a light most favorable to the jury verdict." State v. Gonzales, 2000 UT App 136, ¶ 10, 2 P.3d 954. Reversal is warranted "only if the evidence is so inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime." Id. (quotations and citation omitted). "`So long as there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made, [an appellate court's] inquiry stops.'"State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 16, 25 P.3d 985 (quoting State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985)).
A person commits reckless endangerment if he "recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person." Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-112(1) (2003). Reckless in this context requires a showing that the defendant was "aware of but consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk." Id. § 76-2-103(3) (2003). The risk must be of such magnitude that disregarding the risk "constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint." Id. Recklessness under this definition involves both subjective and objective elements.See State v. Robinson, 2003 UT App 1, ¶ 6, 63 P.3d 105. The subjective elements are whether the defendant actually perceived the risk that his or her actions created and whether he or she consciously disregarded that risk. See id. The objective element is the magnitude of the risk. See id.
There was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that Carter's conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious bodily harm to Baker. The evidence showed that Carter drove a vehicle fast toward Baker, stopping only inches from her after slamming on his brakes on a slippery gravel surface. The evidence also demonstrated that the vehicle was malfunctioning, with a stuck accelerator, and that the road shoulder was gravel and slippery. A jury could determine that both the surface of the road shoulder and the mechanical problems with the vehicle increased the risk. The jury could objectively determine that Carter put Baker at risk of substantial harm because if Carter misjudged, or the vehicle did not respond, or if the gravel slipped, the vehicle would have run into an unprotected Baker with the likelihood of causing severe bodily injury. It is clear that these circumstances created a risk of a vehicle striking down a pedestrian and constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would exercise.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence presented to support a jury's determination that Carter was aware of the risk he created and consciously disregarded it. Evidence showed that Carter's conduct — driving fast toward Baker and skidding to a stop multiple times — was intentional. Carter was aware that the vehicle was malfunctioning. He was aware that the shoulder of the road was rocky and slippery. At one point Baker jumped behind a telephone pole because she was afraid Carter would hit her with the vehicle. A jury could infer from this evidence that Carter was aware of the risk he was creating in charging Baker with his vehicle and skidding to a stop mere inches from her.
Moreover, the jury could infer that Carter consciously disregarded the known risk because he continued to charge Baker with his vehicle despite the risk. Carter was angry at Baker, which provided an explanation of why he might behave with such disregard. Additionally, Carter forcibly took Baker's cell phone after she told him to stop or she would call the police. He also cursed at her. The taking of the cell phone and use of abusive language support the inference of Carter's awareness that his conduct was inappropriate.
In sum, both the objective and subjective parts of the mens rea of recklessness were supported by competent evidence. Overall, there was evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which the jury could find each element of the crime charged. Even if contradictory evidence was presented at trial, this court "assume[s] that the jury believed the evidence supporting the verdict." State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 16.
Accordingly, Carter's conviction is affirmed.
James Z. Davis, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, concur.