In the case of State of Washington v. Dennis James Boger, the appellant, Dennis Boger, was convicted of reckless driving, an offense defined under RCW 46.61.500 as driving a vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” This case highlights the circumstances under which a person can be found guilty of reckless driving, even when not driving at high speeds or on a public roadway.

Case Background

On the evening of December 28, 2009, a resident at an apartment complex in Washington heard the sound of squealing tires in the parking lot. Over a 10 to 15-minute period, the resident observed a truck performing “burnouts” — a maneuver where the tires spin in place, creating smoke and leaving rubber marks on the pavement. The driver, identified as Dennis Boger, drove the truck up onto a curb and into a flower bed before exiting the vehicle. Witnesses noted that Boger appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, and exhibited signs of inebriation, such as slurred speech and stumbling.

When law enforcement arrived, Boger was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). He refused a breathalyzer test but admitted to consuming large amounts of wine over the previous days. In addition to the DUI charge, Boger was also charged with reckless driving based on his conduct in the apartment complex parking lot.

Legal Issues and Court’s Reasoning

The central issue on appeal was whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for reckless driving. Boger argued that the mere act of spinning tires and driving slowly in a parking lot was not enough to demonstrate “willful or wanton disregard” for safety, particularly since no one was actually in the parking lot at the time.

The trial court, however, denied Boger’s motion to dismiss the reckless driving charge, reasoning that a jury could reasonably find his actions reckless. The court emphasized that the jury could use common experience to assess whether performing burnouts in a residential area, especially while intoxicated, constituted reckless driving. The court noted that it was not necessary for someone to be present in the parking lot to determine that Boger’s actions posed a danger to persons or property.

The jury ultimately convicted Boger of both DUI and reckless driving. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the conviction, citing that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational jury to find Boger guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal Principles Affirmed

This case reinforces several important legal principles:

1. Reckless Driving Definition: Reckless driving can be established even in the absence of speeding or endangerment of specific individuals. The conduct must simply demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard for safety, which can be inferred from the circumstances.
2. Role of Intoxication: While intoxication alone is not enough to prove reckless driving, it is a relevant factor when assessing the overall conduct of the defendant.
3. Common Experience: The jury’s ability to apply common experience in evaluating what constitutes dangerous or reckless behavior is a key aspect of such cases.
4. Sufficiency of Evidence: The appellate court’s review standard for sufficiency of evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Conclusion

The State v. Boger case illustrates how seemingly minor traffic infractions, when combined with factors like intoxication and location, can rise to the level of reckless driving under Washington law. The court’s decision underscores the importance of context and the jury’s role in determining what constitutes a threat to public safety.

For more details on the case, you can view the full text of the opinion here.

Review our client resources here

Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.

About Blanford Law:

We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions.  If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com