§291-2  [OLD] REPEALED.  L 1971, c 150,§3.

 

§291-2  Reckless driving of vehicle orriding of animals; penalty.  Whoever operates any vehicle or rides anyanimal recklessly in disregard of the safety of persons or property is guiltyof reckless driving of vehicle or reckless riding of an animal, as appropriate,and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than thirtydays, or both. [PC 1869, c 26, §1; am L 1907, c 68, §1; RL 1925, §4388; RL1935, §6280; am L 1941, c 116, §1; RL 1945, §11701; RL 1955, §311-1; HRS§291-1; am L 1976, c 149, §1; am L 1977, c 162, §1; ren L 1986, c 171, §1; am L1998, c 287, §2]

 

Cross References

 

  Wild cattle or other dangerous animals, see §142-97.

 

Case Notes

 

  Instructions to jury, see 22 H. 786.

  Complaint held insufficient though substantially in languageof statute.  25 H. 584.

  Death ensuing from the operation of a vehicle in violation ofthis section may constitute manslaughter.  29 H. 7.

  Instruction singling out "unavoidable accident". 32 H. 728.

  Person convicted of heedless and reckless driving may notinvoke double jeopardy when person is indicted for negligent homicide upon thedeath of the injured.  40 H. 331.

  Charge in language of statute held insufficient.  41 H. 591.

  Statute requires no more than ordinary negligence as astandard of guilt.  46 H. 245, 377 P.2d 688.

  Substantial evidence test applies to review of evidence; thistest not altered by HRCrP.  46 H. 245, 377 P.2d 688.

  Standard not affected by point system law.  46 H. 345, 379P.2d 592.

  Section not limited to public property but applies to privateproperty as well.  55 H. 505, 523 P.2d 315.

  No obvious defect in an oral charge where the recorddemonstrates the charge tracks the statutory language, and the defendant clearlyunderstood the accusation plus mounted a viable defense.  70 H. 314, 769 P.2d1105.

  Officer's additional observations, considered in concert withthe reasonable inferences arising from defendant's screeching of tires,warranted an objectively reasonable suspicion that defendant had, at a minimum,committed the offense of reckless driving of a vehicle, in  violation of thissection; thus, officer's investigative stop was within the parameters ofpermissible police conduct.  102 H. 228, 74 P.3d 980.

  The reckless state of mind definition under §702-206(3)(1993) applies to this reckless driving statute; in determining whether anidentified risk is substantial and unjustifiable under §702-206(3), the natureand degree of the risk disregarded by the actor, the nature and purpose of theactor's conduct, and the circumstances known to the actor in acting must beweighed.  113 H. 321, 151 P.3d 802.

  Where a reckless state of mind could be inferred from thecircumstances to conclude that there was conscious awareness of a substantialand unjustifiable risk to the safety of others and property on the part ofdefendant, and deference must be given to the trier of fact with respect toquestions of credibility and weight of the evidence, there was substantial evidenceto find defendant guilty of reckless driving in violation of this section.  113H. 321, 151 P.3d 802.

  See 35 H. 324; 35 H. 396; 36 H. 537; 37 H. 591; 43 H. 54; 46H. 315, 379 P.2d 594.