AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, while driving through an intersection in Silver City, New Mexico, struck a pedestrian, causing great bodily injury. The Defendant had waited for a green light before turning and did not accelerate at an unreasonable rate. The incident was captured on a nearby convenience store's surveillance video, which later became a point of contention regarding the Defendant's driving behavior (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County: Denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of great bodily injury by vehicle (reckless driving) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the conduct did not constitute reckless driving as it was merely careless, not willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. The Defendant relied on the surveillance video to support this argument, emphasizing the absence of reckless behavior such as speeding or erratic driving (paras 2-5, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's actions, as captured on the surveillance video, demonstrated either a deliberate act or a complete disregard for driving and surroundings, qualifying as willful and wanton conduct. The State refused to stipulate to the Defendant's assertions about the rate of acceleration and the level of attentiveness (paras 4, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conduct, as captured on surveillance video and described in the motion to dismiss, constituted reckless driving under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-113(A), thereby justifying the charge of great bodily injury by vehicle (reckless driving) (paras 7-9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of great bodily injury by vehicle (reckless driving) (para 21).

Reasons

• Judges Henry M. Bohnhoff, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Stephen G. French: Concluded that the determination of recklessness, particularly the Defendant's state of mind (willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others), is a factual question reserved for the jury. The court found that the Defendant's motion improperly sought to challenge the sufficiency of the State's evidence pretrial, which is not permissible under Rule 5-601(B). The court emphasized that the surveillance video alone did not conclusively establish the Defendant's recklessness or lack thereof as a matter of law, indicating that such determinations are best left to the jury after considering all evidence presented at trial (paras 7-20).