Opinion ID: 2378953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the evidence support a conviction for driving in a reckless manner?

Text: [¶ 13] As his second issue, Mr. Breazeale contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was driving in a reckless manner. When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party, and afford every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from the successful party's evidence. We have consistently held that it is the jury's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury [and] our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did. Masias v. State, 2010 WY 81, ¶ 8, 233 P.3d 944, 947 (Wyo.2010), quoting Lewis v. State, 2006 WY 81, ¶ 7, 137 P.3d 909, 911 (Wyo. 2006). [¶ 14] Mr. Breazeale was convicted of aggravated homicide by vehicle, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-106(b)(ii), which provides that A person is guilty of aggravated homicide by vehicle ... if: ... (ii) He operates or drives a vehicle in a reckless manner, and his conduct is the proximate cause of the death of another person. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he drove in a reckless manner, pointing to the lack of any evidence that he exceeded the speed limit or disregarded traffic control devices. He acknowledges that there was evidence he had inhaled a controlled substance which could have impaired his ability to drive, and admits that driving while under the influence of a controlled substance is prohibited by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233. He claims, however, that driving while under the influence of a controlled substance does not necessarily constitute reckless driving, which is prohibited by a separate statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-229 (Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.). Absent evidence of willful or wanton disregard, Mr. Breazeale contends, he could not be found guilty of driving in a reckless manner. [¶ 15] As set forth above, Mr. Breazeale's argument relies on the definition of reckless driving found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-229. However, as we stated in Rogers v. State, 971 P.2d 599, 603 (Wyo.1999), the definition of recklessly for purposes of aggravated vehicular homicide is the one set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-104(a)(ix): A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the harm he is accused of causing will occur, and the harm results. The risk shall be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation[.] This definition was correctly included in the instructions given to the jury in Mr. Breazeale's case. Contrary to his argument, under this definition it is not necessary to prove willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property in order to prove reckless driving. [¶ 16] The record contains ample evidence that Mr. Breazeale consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk when he drove while inhaling the canned air. His girlfriend testified that he first inhaled the canned air while parked in the lot of the store where the canned air was purchased. At that time, his head cocked over to the side, and he was unconscious for one to two minutes. Even after regaining consciousness, he remained dizzy and out of it. She offered to drive, but Mr. Breazeale refused. While driving on the street, he inhaled the canned air again, and lost consciousness again. Regardless of the obvious risk, Mr. Breazeale inhaled the canned air a third time. This time, he lost consciousness again, and collided with the victim's vehicle. Given this evidence, a rational jury could reasonably conclude Mr. Breazeale was driving the vehicle in a reckless manner.