Lesh v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A2398.,A02A2398. |
| Citation | 577 S.E.2d 4,259 Ga. App. 325 |
| Parties | LESH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
W. John Wilson, Decatur, for appellant.
J. Gray Conger, Dist. Atty., Lew S. Barrow, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
A Muscogee County jury found Michael B. Lesh guilty of first degree vehicular homicide with reckless driving as the underlying offense in that Lesh, after drinking alcohol, did follow another vehicle too closely "in a manner that was not reasonable and prudent," resulting in the death of Michael Hackett. Lesh appeals the conviction and claims in his sole enumeration of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict as to the instant offense. We disagree and affirm.
"A directed verdict of acquittal in a criminal case is authorized only where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom shall demand a verdict of acquittal or not guilty."1
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is the same as that for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. Under that standard we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.2
Here, so viewed, the evidence shows that, on the incident date, Lesh was distraught over his relationship with his girlfriend and had been drinking. Earlier, Lesh had told his girlfriend that he had been drinking; the officer who responded to the 911 accident call smelled alcoholic beverage on Lesh; and a subsequent blood test showed Lesh's blood alcohol content as 0.068. During the early morning hours of the accident date, Lesh was traveling down Macon Road near Windtree Lane, very close to the home of his girlfriend.
The victim, Hackett, operated a forklift in an industrial park on Macon Road. He rode a bicycle frequently and had done so for 26 years. On the incident date, he left home on his bicycle in order to reach work by his 4:00 a.m. shift. The bicycle was newly purchased and had a white reflector on the rear, as well as yellow reflectors on the pedals. The victim was riding down Macon Road toward Macon on the right side of the white fog line, outside the lane of automobile travel. The night was clear; the road was straight; and, at the relevant section, Macon Road has a slight uphill grade, requiring a bicyclist to pedal in order to maintain forward momentum. Under such conditions, the evidence was that the bicycle's reflectors would be clearly visible to a motorist approaching from behind.
As he drove down Macon Road, Lesh approached Hackett's bicycle from behind and hit it. Based upon an examination and comparison of skid marks on and gouges left in the road, the condition and position of the victim, the position and condition of the bicycle, and the condition of Lesh's vehicle, an expert was able to reconstruct the accident as follows: Lesh drove his automobile almost a foot over the fog line on the right side of the road and approached the bicycle from behind outside the lane of travel; Lesh then struck the rear tire and fender of the bicycle, sending the victim onto the hood, the windshield, and ultimately onto the moonroof of Lesh's automobile before throwing the victim to the right edge of the roadway, where the victim's head struck the pavement, causing his death. The evidence shows that Lesh did not immediately use his brake upon striking Hackett; no skid marks were made by Lesh's vehicle. OCGA § 40-6-390(a) provides that, "Any person who drives any vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property commits the offense of reckless driving." The offense of reckless driving may be committed in a variety of ways. "[I]n order to establish a violation of OCGA § 40-6-390, the State needed only to present evidence showing that [the defendant] drove his car in a manner exhibiting reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property."3
Bicycles are considered "vehicles" for purposes of traffic law enforcement.4 In that regard, OCGA § 40-6-49(a) states that "[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway." What is reasonable and prudent is a jury question.5 As is whether the act of "following too closely" demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sevostiyanova v. State
...... stopped or slowed to make a lawful turn shall be deemed to be following for purposes of this Code section”). 51. Lesh v. State, 259 Ga.App. 325, 327, 577 S.E.2d 4 (2003). 52. See Smith v. State, 239 Ga.App. 515, 517(2), 521 S.E.2d 450 (1999). 53. Id., citing Ellerbee v. State, 215 Ga.Ap......
-
Davis v. State
...of a parking lot without stopping and rear-ended a vehicle stopped at a traffic light). 9. See OCGA § 40-6-390(a); Lesh v. State, 259 Ga.App. 325, 327, 577 S.E.2d 4 (2003). 10. (Citations omitted.) Lewis v. State, 214 Ga. App. 830, 832(1), 449 S.E.2d 535 (1994); accord Brent v. State, 270 G......
-
Bautista v. The State
...demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others is a question that is reserved for the jury. Lesh v. State, 259 Ga.App. 325, 326-327, 577 S.E.2d 4 (2003). In this case, the evidence authorized the jury to find that Major, while driving east on Selman Drive, had the right-of-way a......
-
Shy v. the State.
...demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others is a question that is reserved for the jury. Lesh v. State, 259 Ga.App. 325, 326–327, 577 S.E.2d 4 (2003). To sustain a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, “the evidence need not exclude every inference or hypothesis......
-
Legal Ethics - Patrick Emery Longan
...Conduct, supra note 149, at 1.16(b), (c). 228. 259 Ga. App. 380, 577 S.E.2d 2 (2003). 229. Id. at 380, 577 S.E.2d at 3. 230. Id. at 381, 577 S.E.2d at 4. 231. 260 Ga. App. 443, 579 S.E.2d 848 (2003). 232. Id. at 443, 579 S.E.2d at 848. 233. Id. at 446, 579 S.E.2d at 850. 234. 256 Ga. App. 4......