Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog
A recent appellate case involves two legal issues which are often litigated in Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault cases in Ohio. The first issue is the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The second issue is whether the jury should be instructed about the option of finding the defendant guilty of a lesser offense. The case is State v. Horst.
The Collision
Horst was watching a YouTube sports highlight video as he drove his Chevy Silverado in excess of the speed limit. His truck crossed the center line and collided head-on into a vehicle occupied by a driver and a passenger. The passenger died at the scene, and the driver suffered a heart attack. Horst was charged with Aggravated Vehicular Homicide and felony Vehicular Assault.
The Trial
To prove the two charges at trial, the prosecution needed to prove that Horst acted recklessly. Horst called to the stand an expert in Perception Response Time (PRT). The expert was to testify that Horst applied the brakes within the time a reasonable person would have reacted, so Horst did not act recklessly. The judge precluded this testimony.
Horst requested that the judge instruct the jury they could find Horst guilty of the lesser offense of Vehicular Homicide. The lesser offense of Vehicular Homicide involves operating a vehicle negligently and is punishable by up to six months in jail. The original offense of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide involves operating a vehicle recklessly and is punishable by up to five years in prison. The judge declined to instruct the jury about the lesser offense.
Horst was convicted of both offenses. He appealed the conviction to the Seventh District Court of Appeals. Horst argued the judge erred by precluding the expert witness testimony and by declining to instruct the jury about the lesser offense.
Expert Witness Testimony
The appellate court stated the real issue in the case was whether watching a YouTube video while driving fast was reckless, not the action Horst took after perceiving the emergency. The Court noted that Horst admitted he was distracted by the video, and evidence regarding reaction time was irrelevant. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judge’s decision to preclude the expert witness testimony.
Jury Instruction on Lesser Offense
A jury instruction on a lesser offense is given when the evidence would reasonably support an acquittal on the original charge and a conviction of the lesser charge. The appellate court noted there was a plethora of evidence to support a finding of recklessness. The Court implied the evidence would not reasonably support an acquittal on the charge of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judge’s decision to not instruct the jury about the lesser offense of Vehicular Homicide.
The Dissent
One judge on the appellate panel dissented. The dissenting judge concluded the PRT testimony was relevant because it would have assisted the jury in determining whether the distraction from the video slowed Horst’s response time. The judge further concluded that, with the PRT testimony, the jury could have found Horst was not reckless but was negligent. Therefore, the jury could have found Horst not guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide and guilty of Vehicular Homicide.
This case is a good example of nuanced legal issues in Ohio cases of Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault.