Opinion ID: 1978978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal Speeding

Text: [¶ 10] We are also not persuaded by Martin's contention that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that speeding in excess of thirty miles over the speed limit constitutes a criminal offense. Whether Martin's act of speeding would have constituted a civil or criminal violation if he had been charged with speeding was not relevant to the jury's fact-finding; the issue was instead whether the manner in which Martin operated his vehicle satisfied each element of aggravated assault, reckless conduct, and driving to endanger. The court did instruct the jury regarding the definition of speeding as an informational tool regarding the rules of the road. The court's instructions accurately and coherently reflect[ed] the applicable law, and do not amount to prejudicial error. See Ashley, 666 A.2d at 107.