Reckless After Accident In Washington

I've recently been charged with a reckless driving after a single car accident that I was driving in WA state. WA state reckless driving seems to be fairly open to interpretation :

"
(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.
"

My questions:

The accident occured on a fairly straight road after a downhill section that was turned onto from another road. Essentially the road T's and I took a left down the road (if you're looking at the T.) I was driving a 500hp car in the rain coming back from dinner and wasn't paying the needed attention - and lost control of the car. The car slid sideways and I attempted to control the slide during which it whipped back ~2 additional times before going off the road. The car traveled along a ditch on the side of the road with the drivers side sliding forward (the car is now sideways) and went through approximately 25-30 ft of wooden horse pasture style fencing before coming to rest.

I was injured in the accident as a piece of the fencing entered the drivers door and struck me, causing 5 breaks. I spent a little over a week in the hospital and have 3 months in a wheel chair. My passanger was not injured, there were no other cars involved or other property beyond the fence. I made no statements to the police while in the EMT. My passanger has refused to speak to the police after they threatened her (she referred them to her lawyer if they planned on charging her with BS crimes.) The car that was in front of us is a friend of mine and he made no statements. I do not clearly recall our exact speed, I don't feel we were excessively speeding and we were not racing, or doing anything else to intentionally endanger or drive recklessly. The road is a half mile before a residential area and is technically 25 mph.

My questions:

With a wet road and a damage path of gravel, grass and horse fencing what speed evidence could they bring to court?

With a passanger and a driver in front of us stating we were not engaging in anything besides regular driving how much weight does that provide vs. say an officer's "opinion"?

Is there other evidence that the prosecution might have that I'm not considering? What exact path do you feel the prosecution is going to persue to prove my guilt?


I do not have adequate time to arrange a lawyer before my arraignment so I will plead not guilty on my own. From there I would prefer not to incur the cost of a lawyer to simply plea bargain my case to a negligent or other speed violation. Should I consider negotiating with the prosecutor on my own if I'd just prefer to settle the case and not take the risk of losing, and expense, of a trial?

After writing this I get the feeling it's more complex, and not worth the risk, of not hiring a lawyer. However, I feel like I'm screwed either way - I don't feel I willfully did anything illegal but the risk of a conviction vs. the minimal expense of a negligent probably makes it worthwhile to just aim for a plea bargain. The $2k++ expense of a lawyer seems high for simply plea bargaining a case that seems unproven.

Thoughts?

Healing in Seattle

You lost control of your car, were involved in a serious one-car accident, and the accident involved injuries. What more do you think they need?

Yes, you should consider negotiating for a lesser ticket. Also, when you weigh $2000 for a lawyer against the cost of future insurance with this conviction, it doesn't see that expensive to me.

I think you have a good point. Since this is a misdemeanor, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The key difference is that Reckless requires the state to prove a "willful or wanton disregard...." vs. simply "negligent". That's really difficult to do without a witness who will testify to that effect.

From what you've described, I believe the proper charge should have been "Negligent Driving Second Degree", which states:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 46.61.525

---

(1)(a) A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property.

---

Negligent First Degree requires the state to prove you were "under the influence", which, apparently, you were not. I think you would have had a hard time beating that one.

But I would highly recommend getting an attorney. They will keep the officer's testimony restrained to what should be properly admissible evidence. You probably don't have the necessary background to voice the proper objections if and when they are needed.

The key, as I mentioned above, is that, without a witness who will state that you were "all over the road", weaving, speeding, etc., the state will have a hard time proving the "willful or wanton" element of the crime. This is even harder in light of testimony from your friends that you were, indeed, driving properly, but simply lost control on some loose gravel, wet road, whatever.

Good luck,
Barry

Knowitall,

You sound a lot like the city - You were in an accident therefor you're guilty. Proving that I willfully was driving in a reckless manner or that I was even speeding is still burdon of evidence on the prosecution. The accident wasn't your typical "serious" accident - It actually traveled through a maximum total of 24 ft of fencing (including the width (~8ft) of the car and that the starting/stopping points could take another 12 ft of fencing with it), didn't blow any airbags, had no serious impact marks on the car, had a passanger that walked away unscratched. Sliding a car 24ft into an accident in itself certainly doesn't provide evidence of a reckless.

Barry,

Thank you for the helpful feedback. The points regarding the small differences between the charges and what needs to be proved is very helpful.

I have no intention of going to trial without an attorney. However, if he's going to plead it to a negligent before it ever gets to trial why wouldn't I do the same?

Quote:

---

Quoting Scatstroker

---

I have no intention of going to trial without an attorney. However, if he's going to plead it to a negligent before it ever gets to trial why wouldn't I do the same?

---

If it were me -- and this decision is strictly up to you -- I wouldn't plead it out. I think that without a witness of ANY kind (the officers can only testify as to their observations at the scene AFTER the accident and anything YOU said -- even if one of the witnesses said something to them, they cannot testify -- witnesses must testify for themselves), the state will be hard-pressed to prove you guilty of Reckless.

Certainly, if you wanted to contact the prosecutor and explain that you DON'T want to have to retain an attorney, and that you'd be amenable to pleading guilty to, say, negligent second, with a recommendation for a deferral (if you're eligible), that's not a bad way to go. Won't cost you anything, except the "adminstrative fee" (could be as high as $500 in some jurisdictions). Then, assuming you don't get any more tickets for a year, this one will be dismissed and won't show on you record. No attorney's fees. No insurance increases. Just be VERY careful for the next year.

Don't be too hard on Mr. KIA. He is EXTREMELY knowledgable. He may have been a little hasty in his assumptions in your case, but his advice is quite sound.

Let us know the outcome,
Barry

Barry,

My most major concern is a little loophole in the way I read RWA : RCW 46.61.465

"Excess speed as prima facie evidence of reckless driving"

I might be incorrect in reading this but throughout some research any excess speed (1 mph) can be construed as prima facie. While I don't feel it's fair I believe they could prove I was going 26mph - And find me guilty.

I believe you're right about proving intent - with the only 2 witnesses stating otherwise and absolutely no statement from me (unless I testify on my own behalf) they have an accident scene. I'm waiting for the accident report but I doubt the officer even listed the fact that I was following another car (that literally would be impossible to follow at extremely excessive speeds) and they overlooked the fact that there was a passanger until 2 days after the accident.

Thank you for the help - I'm curious if the responding posters are attorney's, law school students or just people who have been trhough this before?

OK, let's suppose for a minute that the police sent an Accident Reconstruction Team to the site of your accident, or that the officers who did respond were experts in accident reconstruction. The problem is that it's not an exact science.

A true expert in the field might, after some investigation, provide a speed "range" for your vehicle, but that's about it. Do you know if such an investigation was carried out? It's highly unlikely unless there were serious injuries or a death. Even so, could the so-called expert testify "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were exceding 25? If your skid marks are 225 feet long and you were clearly going 80, yeah. But, if your speed was, indeed, between 25 and, say, 30, there is plenty of room for doubt.

That's one of the reasons you need an attorney. If an officer who is NOT an expert in that field tries to testify about how fast he/she "believes" you were going, you would need to object. It would be purely conjecture on the officer's part -- but you MUST make a timely objection, or the evidence gets admitted.

So, unless one or more of the officers was an expert in the field, and they carried out an thorough investigation, or if they somehow observed your vehicle before the accident and "clocked" your speed, there should be no way to get that into evidence.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scatskroker

---

I'm curious if the responding posters are attorney's, law school students or just people who have been trhough this before?

---

Very few responders here are attorneys. Aaron Larson, who owns this site, of course, is. I also believe that Mr. Knowitall is, but he has never admitted that -- it's just a feeling I have. There may be others -- there are some who have claimed to be -- but probably weren't -- however, most of them are gone now. Personally, I am a software engineer -- so take EVERYTHING I say with a LARGE grain of salt.

You know, you don't have to like the fact that your loss of control of the car will be taken as evidence that you were driving too fast for the road conditions. But that's what's going to happen in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You know, you don't have to like the fact that your loss of control of the car will be taken as evidence that you were driving too fast for the road conditions. But that's what's going to happen in court.

---

I agree Mr. KIA, but he was not charged with "too fast for conditions". He was charged with "willful and wanton disregard". I think that's the whole point. I believe that there's a major difference between not be attentive and losing control of one's car and deliberately driving in a reckless manner.

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 9A.08.010(1)

---

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.

---

I still think the proper charge should have been "Negligent Driving".

Now, whether or not the court agrees with me, is another matter entirely. But, I think it's worth the fight, considering the possible consequences.

Barry

I expect the court (and, if applicable, jury) to observe that any half-way competent driver knows that if you drive too fast for the weather conditions, you risk losing control of your car and having an accident.

Quote:

---

Quoting State v Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400; 103 P.3d 1238 (2005).

---

A reasonable person in a similar situation would have recognized the risks inherent in the driving behavior in which the respondent engaged. As such, even if she did not have actual knowledge of the specific risks, she had constructive knowledge of those risks. CP at 245-46, FF 12-14 (emphasis added). The juvenile court thus explicitly found that Graham "knew that" driving at high speeds, inattentively, or recklessly "created a dangerous situation"; that she "knew the risks inherent in driving fast or in an unsafe manner"; and that she "knew that driving at high speeds, not paying attention to the road, and playing games with the wheel were unsafe and could cause an accident." CP at 245-46, FF 12-13 (emphasis added). The findings that Graham "knew" that her conduct "created a dangerous situation" and "could cause an accident" satisfy the knowledge component of the statutory definition of recklessness: "A person . . . acts recklessly when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur." RCW 9A.08.010(1)(c).

---

I'll still have to respectfully disagree. In Graham, the driver was travelling in excess of 80 MPH in a 40 zone. She was also swerving deliberately back and forth -- showing off, as it were. The holding in Graham was that a driver need not be aware of "specific" risks, but rather should have known of the "inherent risks in driving fast or in an unsafe manner."

According to the OP's story, it was raining, he wasn't paying close attention, he lost control, skidded and came to rest in about 25 - 30 feet. That's not the same as travelling 80 in a deliberately dangerous manner.

I still think it's a case of negligence, not recklessness. But the courts may agree with you, I just don't know.

Barry

You can disagree all you want. The law remains the law, and the law as clearly set forth in that case applies under the described facts.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I expect the court (and, if applicable, jury) to observe that any half-way competent driver knows that if you drive too fast for the weather conditions, you risk losing control of your car and having an accident.

---

Mr. KIA,

Losing control of your vehicle at 26mph is far different than driving 80 mph in a 40 mph zone and applying precedence from a case at 2x the speed limit is hardly reasonable. Given that application everyone with a speeding ticket is guilty of reckless driving and should be charged as so - hardly the case.

It's not a matter of like, or dislike, it's a matter of what's reasonable to prove in court and simply having an accident is not evidence of reckless driving.



After receiving discovery documents from the prosecutor there is an accident report, a police report and an impound report. The police report has a single piece of actual fact - a claim that the car slid 80ft before coming to a stop. The accident investigation was performed by a local officer that I doubt has accident reconstruction expertise but I have no evidence to prove that.

After receiving the 80ft claim I requested paperwork from the 3rd party that actually replaced the fencing that states 5 posts were replaced, providing a maxiumum of 60ft that the car could have slid, assuming it hit on maximum ends on both sides, which it didn't. Given the length of the car, 15ft, the car slid 3x its length (45ft) plus the length of the vehicle, maximum.

The police report also states the accident happened 300ft from where we turned in prior to the accident (and coming to a stop before doing so.) With a turn and a slight bend in the road with wet pavement I believe it's physically impossible to achieve 50-60 mph that would normally support a reckless driving charge - Although I need to find evidence to prove this.

Both of the above facts are inaccurate in the police report - the car slid, at best 75% of the claimed distance, and the scene was farther than 300ft from the turn. There are also other inaccuracies in the police report but given those are the only facts to support the claim they're the only ones I'm focusing on.


I appreciate the response!

And my most current question...


I'm essentially looking to have this case dropped/reduced before going to court, hence the reason I've been doing my own footwork.

How do you address the prosecutor to request this?

I have a 2 page letter disputing the facts and providing our evidence but I'm not sure this is the proper way to request a negotiation... how do the attorney's normally address this with the prosecutor?

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

A true expert in the field might, after some investigation, provide a speed "range" for your vehicle, but that's about it. Do you know if such an investigation was carried out? It's highly unlikely unless there were serious injuries or a death. Even so, could the so-called expert testify "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you were exceding 25? If your skid marks are 225 feet long and you were clearly going 80, yeah. But, if your speed was, indeed, between 25 and, say, 30, there is plenty of room for doubt.

That's one of the reasons you need an attorney. If an officer who is NOT an expert in that field tries to testify about how fast he/she "believes" you were going, you would need to object. It would be purely conjecture on the officer's part -- but you MUST make a timely objection, or the evidence gets admitted.

So, unless one or more of the officers was an expert in the field, and they carried out an thorough investigation, or if they somehow observed your vehicle before the accident and "clocked" your speed, there should be no way to get that into evidence.

---

Do you happen to have WA state case precedent that I can refer to? Specifically, stating an uncertified officer's opinion is subjective is what I'm looking for.

Thank you.