## Facts

- On December 23, 2010, around 9:15 p.m., Chad Belleville drove a Ford Explorer southbound on Route 28 in Pittsfield, New Hampshire, on a dry, clear, dark night.
- The roadway had a northbound lane, a wide median turning lane separated by double yellow lines, and a southbound lane.
- Witnesses traveling northbound observed Belleville’s SUV drifting into the median lane and nearly striking an oncoming vehicle, then continuing into the oncoming lane and colliding with a Subaru carrying a family and then a trailing Honda.
- There was no evidence Belleville braked or attempted evasive maneuvers before impact.
- A child passenger in the Subaru suffered severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury and major facial trauma.
- At the scene, a trooper asked Belleville about phone use; Belleville showed call history reflecting no pre-collision calls and stated he thought he had “erased the history or something.”
- About eight months later, Belleville admitted he was checking a text message at the time of the crash and did not see the oncoming vehicles.
- Phone records showed texts and calls earlier in the evening but no recorded activity during the minutes surrounding the collision, consistent with checking (not sending/receiving) a text.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Belleville acted “recklessly,” rather than merely negligently, in causing serious bodily injury for purposes of second-degree assault under RSA 631:2 and RSA 626:2.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the bench-trial conviction for second-degree assault.
- The court held that a rational fact-finder could find Belleville was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk by diverting attention to check a text while driving and drifting across lanes into oncoming traffic without braking.
- The court held that evidence suggesting deletion of phone history could be considered as consciousness of guilt supporting the inference of awareness of risk.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A person acts recklessly when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct of a law-abiding person in the same situation.
- Deliberate cell-phone distraction while driving, combined with driving behavior demonstrating loss of attention (lane departure into oncoming traffic) and absence of braking or evasive action, can support a finding of criminal recklessness.
- Proof of recklessness does not require additional aggravating factors (such as intoxication) when the circumstances themselves permit an inference of conscious disregard of an obvious, serious risk.
- Post-incident conduct suggesting concealment (e.g., deleting phone history) may be considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Belleville’s second-degree assault conviction, concluding that deliberately checking a text while driving and drifting across multiple lanes into oncoming traffic, without braking or evasive action, permitted a finding that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk amounting to criminal recklessness.


State v. Belleville, 166 N.H. 58 (N.H. 2014)