## Facts

- Dalene Gail Huser drove near the Kansas State University campus in Manhattan, Kansas, around 1:45 a.m. on August 18, 1996.
- Six pedestrians were crossing the street; two were still crossing at an angle outside a marked crosswalk when Huser’s car struck them, injuring both.
- Evidence at the preliminary hearing indicated the pedestrians were two or three steps past the center line at impact, no skid or brake marks were present, and the vehicle traveled about 1–3 feet after impact.
- The injured pedestrians testified they did not see Huser’s car until after it hit them.
- The State charged Huser with two counts of reckless aggravated battery, multiple DUI counts, and refusal to submit to a preliminary screening alcohol test.
- At the preliminary hearing, the district court found probable cause on one DUI count and one refusal count but dismissed the two reckless aggravated battery counts for lack of probable cause as to “recklessness,” reasoning intoxication alone did not establish reckless conduct.
- The State took an interlocutory appeal challenging the dismissal of the reckless aggravated battery counts.

## Issues

1. What is the probable-cause standard at a Kansas preliminary hearing, and what is the scope of appellate review of a dismissal for lack of probable cause?
2. Whether evidence of driving under the influence, without more, establishes probable cause for reckless aggravated battery, or whether additional evidence of reckless conduct is required.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the two reckless aggravated battery counts.
- The court applied de novo review to the preliminary-hearing probable-cause determination.
- The court held that DUI evidence, standing alone, did not supply probable cause that Huser acted recklessly as required for reckless aggravated battery.

## Legal Principles

- At a preliminary hearing, the State must present evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to entertain a reasonable belief that a felony was committed and the accused committed it; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required.
- Appellate review of a preliminary-hearing probable-cause ruling is de novo, with an independent examination of the evidence.
- “Reckless” conduct requires circumstances showing realization of imminent danger to another and a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of that danger.
- For reckless aggravated battery, additional evidence beyond intoxication is required to establish probable cause of recklessness; simply driving under the influence does not, by itself, amount to reckless behavior.

## Conclusion

The court held that probable cause for reckless aggravated battery requires evidence of statutory recklessness beyond proof of DUI and resulting injury, and it affirmed dismissal where the State’s evidence did not show additional conduct demonstrating a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of an imminent danger to others.


State v. Huser, 959 P.2d 908 (Kan. 1998)