Virginia Divorce/Child Custody & Support Lawyers

Lawyer - Virginia Reckless Driving

As per Va. Code § 46.2-852, the general rule for reckless driving is defined as, irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.

Below is a sample case of reckless driving in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with Reckless Driving in Virginia and you are wondering what the penalty is in VA?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with Reckless Driving in Virginia?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of Reckless Driving can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of Reckless Driving in Virginia.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of Reckless Driving in Virginia and you are wondering what the penalty is in VA, contact our law firm for help.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg.

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your Criminal Case. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. The lawyers in our law firm have the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Lawrence v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant challenged the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax (Virginia), which convicted defendant of reckless driving pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266, and three counts of second-degree murder for fatalities in an automobile collision.

If you are facing a traffic case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

• A defendant's degree of intoxication, however great, neither enhances nor impairs the set of facts relied upon to establish implied malice. In making the determination whether malice exists, the fact-finder must be guided by the quality of the defendant's conduct, its likelihood of causing death or great bodily harm, and whether it was volitional or inadvertent; not by the defendant's blood-alcohol level. One who knowingly drives his automobile on the highway under the influence of intoxicants, in violation of statute, is, of course, negligent. It is a wrong, reckless and unlawful thing to do; but it is not necessarily a malicious act. A sober driver may be eminently malicious, while a drunken driver may be merely reckless.
• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268 provides that a certificate attesting to the results of a blood-alcohol analysis, performed in substantial compliance with the procedural steps detailed in the statute, is self-authenticating as evidence of the misdemeanor defined in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-266. The certificate is not, however, the only evidence the statute authorizes as proof of intoxication, and nothing in the statute excludes evidence of the results of other scientific tests if such evidence is otherwise admissible under the rules. A court shall consider such other relevant evidence of the condition of an accused as shall be admissible in evidence. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(i). Evidence of the results of the hospital test, if supported by a proper foundation, constitute "other relevant evidence" within the intendment of the statute and is properly admitted as proof of drunken driving.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg.

An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. The lawyers in our law firm have the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.