Rollins v. State
2009 Ark. LEXIS 645, 347 S.W.3d 20, 2009 Ark. 484 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury can infer the mental state of recklessness required for a manslaughter conviction from a combination of circumstantial evidence, including erratic driving, causing a fatal collision, and the recent ingestion of controlled substances, even without expert testimony quantifying the level of impairment.
Facts:
- Vance Rollins drove an SUV erratically behind a vehicle occupied by O.J. and Barbara Williams, repeatedly tailgating them over a fifteen-mile stretch of highway.
- The Williamses pulled off the road to allow Rollins to pass, but he did not; they waited several minutes before re-entering the highway.
- Around 3:00 p.m., Rollins was seen driving fast around a curve while looking over his right shoulder.
- While looking away from the road, Rollins's vehicle crossed the center line and entered the lane of oncoming traffic.
- Rollins's SUV collided head-on with a car occupied by Lawrence and Nina Humphrey, killing them both. Rollins did not appear to brake or swerve before the impact.
- Immediately after the crash, a nurse assisting at the scene saw Rollins drop several green pills, which were later identified as hydrocodone.
- Police found a duffel bag in Rollins's vehicle containing pipes with cocaine residue.
- A blood sample taken from Rollins approximately four hours after the crash tested positive for cocaine and sertraline (Zoloft) at low levels.
Procedural Posture:
- Vance Rollins was charged with two counts of manslaughter in the Perry County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- At trial, Rollins moved for a directed verdict, arguing insufficient evidence of recklessness, which the trial court denied.
- The jury convicted Rollins on both counts of manslaughter.
- Rollins, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals agreed with Rollins, reversing the manslaughter convictions and modifying the judgment to the lesser-included offense of negligent homicide.
- The State of Arkansas, as petitioner, sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, the state's highest court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a combination of evidence showing erratic driving, crossing the center line into oncoming traffic, causing a fatal head-on collision, and having recently ingested cocaine constitute substantial evidence for a jury to find a defendant acted 'recklessly,' as required for a manslaughter conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Elana Cunningham Wills
Yes. A combination of evidence showing erratic driving, dangerous maneuvers, and recent drug use is sufficient for a jury to infer that a defendant acted with the conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk required for a manslaughter conviction. The state must prove that the defendant recklessly caused a death, which is defined as consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The primary distinction between recklessness and negligence is whether the actor perceived the risk and disregarded it (reckless) or failed to perceive it in the first place (negligent). Intent is rarely provable by direct evidence, so jurors are permitted to infer it from the circumstances. Here, the circumstances—including tailgating for fifteen miles, driving fast on a curve, crossing the center line while looking away from the road, not braking before impact, and having recently ingested cocaine—provide substantial evidence from which a jury could infer Rollins consciously disregarded a risk. Unlike felony negligent homicide, a conviction for reckless manslaughter does not require proof of intoxication or a specific level of impairment.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Jim Hannah
No. The evidence presented by the State only supports a finding of negligence, not recklessness, because there was no proof that Rollins consciously disregarded a known risk. The State's evidence showed Rollins looked away from the road and unintentionally veered into oncoming traffic, which is classic negligence—a failure to perceive a risk that a reasonable person would have. The prosecution failed to present any evidence that Rollins consciously decided to drive in the wrong lane. Furthermore, the State offered no expert testimony that the low level of drugs in Rollins's system could have impaired his driving, making the issue of intoxication irrelevant. The majority's reliance on prior cases is misplaced, as those cases involved clear intoxication or deliberate dangerous acts, unlike Rollins's momentary inattention. The evidence supports a conviction for the lesser-included offense of negligent homicide, not manslaughter.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for proving the mental state of 'recklessness' in vehicular manslaughter cases in Arkansas. It establishes that a jury can infer a conscious disregard for human life from a totality of circumstances, including dangerous driving combined with recent drug use, even without direct proof of the defendant's subjective awareness of the risk or expert testimony quantifying impairment. This lowers the evidentiary burden for prosecutors in similar cases, potentially blurring the line between recklessness and gross negligence. The ruling gives significant deference to a jury's ability to infer a defendant's mental state from their actions leading up to a fatal incident.
Unlock the full brief for Rollins v. State