Court Opinion

ID: 9743312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:30:35.542396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.497969
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reason that the majority opinion had to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses in order to reach the end result. This is not allowed. Hurt v. State (1990), Ind.App., 553 N.E.2d 1243.
In viewing the evidence most favorable to the verdict, it is obvious that professional truck driver Wallace changed lanes of traffic without looking or signaling his intention, and in so doing created a substantial risk of harm to Dr. Mandelbaum and his wife. The evidence and inferences legitimately drawn therefrom show that Wallace had to know that in so doing he was acting in disregard of the harm that could result to a passing motorist. The evidence, when measured against the essential elements of the crime of criminal recklessness, is more than adequate to sustain the conviction.
I would affirm the conviction.