State v. Skaggs
925 N.E.2d 676, 185 Ohio App. 3d 752 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver with a known medical condition that can impair their ability to drive may be found to have acted with criminal recklessness if they fail to manage the condition, such as by not taking prescribed medication or by not reporting seizures to their doctor as required to maintain a valid driver's license, and subsequently cause a fatal accident.
Facts:
- Defendant Jason Skaggs had a diagnosed seizure disorder (epilepsy) for which he was prescribed medication.
- Skaggs's driver's license was subject to a medical restriction requiring him to submit an annual form from his physician stating his condition was under control.
- In October 2006, Skaggs experienced a seizure, which he did not report to his physician.
- On March 8, 2007, blood tests after the crash revealed Skaggs did not have his prescribed anti-seizure medications, Keppra and Depakote, in his system.
- On that day, Skaggs drove his Chevy Tahoe northbound on Urbana Road at 96 miles per hour during evening rush hour.
- He approached a busy intersection and, without slowing, struck several vehicles that were stopped at a red light, causing a chain-reaction collision.
- The collision resulted in the deaths of three people and serious physical injury to two others.
Procedural Posture:
- Jason Skaggs was indicted in a Clark County trial court on three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault.
- Following a jury trial, Skaggs was convicted of all charges.
- The trial court sentenced Skaggs to a total of 34 years in prison.
- Skaggs, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Second District.
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 sufficient evidence support a finding that a defendant acted recklessly for the purposes of aggravated vehicular homicide when he, a driver with diagnosed epilepsy, caused a fatal crash after failing to take his prescribed medication and failing to report a prior seizure to his doctor?
Opinions:
Majority - Grady, J.
Yes, sufficient evidence supports the finding that the defendant acted recklessly. A conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide can be sustained on two alternative grounds: either the defendant did not have a seizure and his recklessness is demonstrated by driving at a grossly excessive speed into stopped traffic, or, even if he did have a seizure, his recklessness is established by his prior conduct. The court reasoned that by failing to report his prior October 2006 seizure to his doctor—an act which would have resulted in the suspension of his driving privileges—and by failing to take his prescribed anti-seizure medication, Skaggs perversely disregarded a known risk that he could have a seizure while driving and cause harm to others. This conscious disregard for a known risk satisfies the culpable mental state of recklessness required for the conviction.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the scope of 'recklessness' in vehicular homicide cases involving drivers with known medical conditions. The court's decision establishes that the required culpable mental state can be formed not just by the act of dangerous driving itself, but by a course of conduct preceding the event, such as non-compliance with medical treatment and reporting requirements. This precedent broadens the temporal scope for establishing mens rea, making it more difficult for defendants to use a sudden medical emergency as a complete defense if their own negligence in managing their condition contributed to the risk.
