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 was convicted of two counts of homicide by vehicle due to reckless driving, two counts of great bodily harm by vehicle due to reckless driving, one count of causing or permitting an unsafe vehicle to be moved, and one count of driving under a foreign license during suspension or revocation. The convictions stemmed from incidents involving the Defendant's driving behavior.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by refusing to give a lesser included offense instruction on careless driving for the charges of vehicular homicide by reckless driving and great bodily harm by reckless driving. Additionally, challenged the legality of the sentence for driving under a foreign license during suspension or revocation.
• Appellee: Initially opposed the Defendant's arguments but conceded that the Defendant preserved his request for a lesser included offense instruction on careless driving. The State argued that the jury had considered the difference between reckless and careless driving and rejected the theory of careless driving by convicting the Defendant of reckless driving.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not giving a lesser included offense instruction on careless driving for the charges of vehicular homicide by reckless driving and great bodily harm by reckless driving.
• Whether the sentence for driving under a foreign license during suspension or revocation was illegal.

Disposition

• The convictions for vehicular homicide by reckless driving and great bodily harm by reckless driving were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on these charges.
• The sentence for driving under a foreign license during suspension or revocation was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing on that offense.

Reasons

• DUFFY, J., HANISEE, J., and YOHALEM, J. concurring:
  The court found that the district court's refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction on careless driving constituted reversible error. This decision was based on the principle that a lesser offense instruction is warranted when the lesser offense is included in the greater charged offense and there is evidence tending to establish the lesser included offense (paras 3-4).
  The court disagreed with the State's argument that the jury had effectively considered the difference between reckless and careless driving through the definitional instruction provided, holding that a specific instruction on the lesser included offense was necessary (para 3).
  The court was not persuaded by the State's contention that no rational jury could find that careless driving was the highest offense committed, maintaining that the Defendant was entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on careless driving (para 7).
  Regarding the sentence for driving under a foreign license during suspension or revocation, the court agreed with the Defendant that the sentence was illegal because it treated a misdemeanor as if it were a felony, leading to the decision to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing (para 8).