## Facts

- Mack Germany was driving on a highway towing a U-Haul trailer when he noticed his load had come loose.
- Germany pulled into the highway emergency lane and got out of his vehicle.
- Rodney Beasley, driving a truck that was at least partly in the emergency lane, struck and killed Germany.
- The state charged Beasley with aggravated vehicular homicide based on recklessly causing Germany’s death while operating a motor vehicle.
- At trial, there was no evidence that Beasley was speeding or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
- Witnesses testified that Beasley was weaving before the collision and that he was driving in the emergency lane.
- Beasley testified that he looked back to check whether his own load had shifted and that he applied his brakes before impact.
- Beasley returned to the scene after the collision.
- The jury convicted Beasley of aggravated vehicular homicide.
- On appeal, Beasley argued the trial court should have instructed the jury on vehicular homicide as a lesser included offense.

## Issues

1. Whether vehicular homicide is a lesser included offense of aggravated vehicular homicide as charged.
2. Whether the trial evidence permitted a rational jury to find Beasley acted negligently rather than recklessly, requiring a lesser-included-offense instruction on vehicular homicide.
3. Whether the trial court’s refusal to give the requested lesser-included-offense instruction required reversal.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed Beasley’s aggravated vehicular homicide conviction on direct appeal.
- The court held that vehicular homicide qualifies as a lesser included offense of aggravated vehicular homicide on the theory charged in this case.
- The court concluded the evidence would have allowed a rational jury to reject recklessness yet find criminal negligence, so the jury should have been instructed on vehicular homicide.
- The court reversed Beasley’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction when (1) the lesser offense is included within the charged offense and (2) the evidence would allow a rational jury to acquit on the greater offense while convicting on the lesser.
- When aggravated vehicular homicide is charged on a “recklessly” causing death theory, the key question for a lesser-included instruction is whether the evidence could support negligence rather than recklessness.
- In deciding whether to give a lesser-included instruction, the court considers whether the record contains evidence that, if believed, would support the lesser mental state, even if other evidence could support the greater offense.
- When the jury could reasonably view the defendant’s driving as careless or inattentive conduct short of recklessness, refusing a requested vehicular-homicide instruction can be reversible error.

## Conclusion

State v. Beasley addresses whether, in an aggravated vehicular homicide prosecution based on recklessness, the jury must also be instructed on vehicular homicide when the evidence could support a finding of negligence; the appellate court concluded the instruction was required on this record and reversed and remanded.


State v. Beasley, 1995 WL 453082 (1995)