State v. Knight

Citation: 31 Neb. Ct. App. 176Docket: A-21-158

Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals; July 12, 2022; Nebraska; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jesse O. Knight appeals his convictions for motor vehicle homicide by reckless driving and reckless driving, contending that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty of reckless driving rather than the lesser-included offense of careless driving. The Nebraska Supreme Court emphasizes that when reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims, appellate courts do not evaluate conflicts, witness credibility, or reweigh evidence; instead, they assess whether any rational trier of fact could determine the crime's essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt based on a favorable view of the prosecution's evidence.

Recklessness is defined as a disregard for the safety of others or the consequences of one’s actions. The court differentiates between reckless driving—characterized by moderate speeding and erratic driving—and willful reckless driving, which typically involves extreme behaviors such as high-speed driving in dangerous conditions or fleeing law enforcement. Knight was charged with two counts of motor vehicle homicide by reckless driving and one count of reckless driving after a collision on August 7, 2019, which resulted in the deaths of two children. He had already pleaded guilty to operating a commercial vehicle with a canceled license, a conviction not contested in this appeal. A jury trial established that Knight's actions directly caused the fatalities, with the only question for the jury concerning whether he acted recklessly, leading to the affirmation of his conviction for motor vehicle homicide by reckless driving.

The parties stipulated that the traffic lights at the intersection of Highway 370 and 192d Street were operational and turned red as Knight approached. Yellow warning signals were placed 648 feet before the intersection, advising drivers to prepare to stop, and these signals were flashing as Knight passed. Two vehicles, a Honda Accord and a Toyota Sienna, were stopped in the right lane at the intersection when Knight's dump truck collided with the Toyota Sienna, traveling at a minimum speed of 47 mph, resulting in the deaths of two occupants. Knight was on a 13-minute phone call that ended shortly before the collision, with the first 911 call received about 1 minute after the incident. Eyewitnesses noted that Knight's truck did not appear to slow down or take evasive action. Knight stated he saw the red light and the stopped vehicles but claimed his brakes failed. A sheriff's deputy confirmed Knight did not have a hands-free device, and an investigator analyzed Knight's phone data, which did not indicate distractions or whether he used speaker function. Shawn Reeh, a part-time mechanic for the truck's company, testified about conducting regular inspections and maintenance on the truck, with the last yearly inspection in March 2019.

Reeh could not specify the exact date of his last inspection of the truck but indicated it occurred 2 to 3 weeks before the accident. He described the truck's airbrake system, which disengages emergency brakes and engages service brakes using compressed air. This system includes redundancies to automatically engage emergency brakes in the event of catastrophic air pressure loss. Minor air leaks would not significantly affect brake function, according to Reeh. Trooper Cody McGee conducted a post-crash inspection, providing photographs and noting that the towing company had to cage the operational emergency brakes to tow the truck. McGee identified several violations, including a small leak in an air hose, categorized as a pre-crash violation, though he could not confirm its timing. He stated such minor leaks typically do not lead to catastrophic brake failure. Conversely, he found a broken air line post-crash, which could result in significant air loss, suggesting that the crash triggered a catastrophic failure. McGee reconstructed the braking system after the accident and confirmed the service brakes were functioning properly beforehand. Sgt. John Mobley, a traffic crash reconstructionist, confirmed that the reported minimum speed of 47 miles per hour indicated that the vehicle was likely traveling faster at the time of the accident, as this was necessary to account for energy loss during the crash. Sgt. Kyle Percifield, also a reconstructionist, determined that Knight did not brake or react before the collision, despite acknowledging that the damage to the other vehicle indicated Knight may have turned slightly right prior to impact. Percifield maintained that there was no evidence of evasive action taken by Knight before the crash.

Knight failed to brake prior to a collision, as concluded by investigator Percifield, who noted no signs of heavy braking. Although he acknowledged the possibility of normal braking, Percifield reasoned that Knight would have applied heavy braking upon seeing a red light and stopped vehicles. The absence of heavy braking indicated that Knight either did not see the warning or noticed it too late to stop. Data from the Toyota Sienna’s airbag control module showed the truck was traveling at a minimum speed of 47 miles per hour at impact. Percifield explained that while the module recorded only longitudinal velocity changes, the actual impact speed could be higher due to lateral forces not recorded. He determined Knight needed 229 to 242 feet to stop safely, while 648 feet were available before the intersection. The jury found Knight guilty of two counts of motor vehicle homicide by reckless driving and one count of reckless driving, leading to his appeal. Knight argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Under Nebraska law, motor vehicle homicide occurs when a person unintentionally causes another's death while violating traffic laws, classified as a Class I misdemeanor or Class IIIA felony depending on the circumstances.

Section 60-6,213 defines reckless driving, while Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,214 defines willful reckless driving. The parties agreed that Knight committed motor vehicle homicide under 28-306(1). The sole trial dispute was whether Knight also engaged in reckless driving, which would elevate the homicide charge under 28-306(3)(a). The jury concluded affirmatively, finding Knight guilty of both motor vehicle homicide by reckless driving and reckless driving. On appeal, Knight contends the evidence was insufficient to support a reckless driving conviction, asserting he should have been found guilty only of motor vehicle homicide and careless driving.

The court’s review focuses on whether a rational jury could have determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Knight drove recklessly when viewing the evidence favorably for the prosecution. Reckless driving, as per 60-6,213, involves driving that shows a wanton disregard for safety. Recklessness is characterized by indifference to the safety of others or the consequences of one's actions. The court differentiates between careless driving, which lacks due caution, and willful reckless driving, which demonstrates a deliberate disregard for safety.

While the case lacks evidence of extreme behavior, such as speeding or aggressive driving, the court found sufficient evidence of irresponsible driving. Knight argued his driving was normal apart from a moment of inattention. However, evidence indicated that his inattention was not limited to the moments before the collision. Knight ignored flashing yellow warning signals 648 feet before the intersection, failed to heed a red traffic light, and did not notice stopped vehicles ahead. Additionally, he was engaged in a 13-minute phone call, ending shortly before the accident, likely contributing to his distraction. The evidence showed he needed between 229 and 242 feet to stop safely; had he noticed the warnings, he would have had ample distance to stop.

Knight failed to notice flashing warning signals and had ample opportunity to recognize the red light and stopped vehicles ahead. Even if he did not see these signals in time to stop, he had sufficient warning to apply the brakes and avoid the collision. However, Knight did not take any significant action to prevent the crash, aside from possibly slightly steering to the right. His prolonged distraction led him to ignore multiple warnings and drive a loaded dump truck through a red light at full speed. This sustained inattention, viewed favorably for the prosecution, provides enough evidence for a rational jury to determine that Knight was driving recklessly at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirms Knight’s convictions for motor vehicle homicide by reckless driving and reckless driving.