Court Opinion

ID: 9641302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:28:05.787314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:36.485012
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of the offense of reckless driving, under Art. 6701d, Sec. 51, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St.; he was assessed a fine of $100.
The only error claimed relates to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted. The statute reads:
“Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.”
It is appellant’s contention that the statute is so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it is rendered void. This Court, in Ex Parte Chernosky, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 217 S.W.2d 673 (1949), held void a reckless driving statute because of the inclusion of the phrase, “. . . without due caution or circumspection . . . .” This Court concluded that this phrase rendered the statute unconstitutionally vague. See also Ex Parte De La Pena, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 560, 251 S.W.2d 890, 891 (1952). The phrase does not occur in the present statute, quoted above, which became effective in 1971.
The language of the present statute is almost identical to that of the Illinois statute on reckless driving. See Illinois Laws, S.H.A., ch. 95i/2, Sec. 11 — 503. The only difference is a matter of one word, in that Illinois requires that one drive “with” willful and wanton disregard, rather than “in” willful and wanton disregard as does our statute. The Illinois courts have repeatedly upheld this statute against claims that it was vague. See People v. Green, 368 Ill. 242, 13 N.E.2d 278 (1938); City of Rockford v. Floyd, 104 Ill.App.2d 161, 243 N.E. *9372d 837 (1968). A number of similarly worded statutes have been upheld in other jurisdictions. See Lancaster v. State, 83 Ga.App. 746, 64 S.W.2d 902 (Ga.App.1951); and People v. McNutt, 40 Cal.App. 2d Supp. 835, 105 P.2d 657 (1940). Also, see Annot., 12 A.L.R.2d 580, and cases there cited.
Approving of the reasoning in these cases, we conclude that the statute, as revised, is not unconstitutional.
The judgment is affirmed.