Evidence supports conviction in reckless homicide case, appeals court concludes

By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

Jan. 9, 2012 – Prescription drugs, alcohol, and a Porsche convertible was a deadly combination for Anreitta Geske, who was convicted on two counts of first-degree reckless homicide.

A crash reconstruction expert concluded that Geske was travelling between 79 and 96 mph in a 30 mph zone when she ran a red light and crashed into another car, killing the occupants inside. Eye witnesses confirmed the high rate of speed at which Geske was driving.

In State v. Geske, 2010AP2808-CR (Jan. 4, 2012) the District III Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Geske’s argument that evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the “utter disregard for human life” element of the homicide charge.

Specifically, Geske argued the charges could not stick because she swerved to avoid the collision, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that swerving precludes a finding of utter disregard. But the appeals court disagreed under the totality of the circumstances.

“While swerving was held to show regard for human life in prior cases, we must consider the defendant’s conduct in context …,” wrote Presiding Judge Michael Hoover, noting that Geske never braked or slowed down before running the red light.

“These factors demonstrate an utter disregard for human life, regardless of whether Geske attempted a last-minute swerve,” Judge Hoover explained. “A legally intoxicated person driving over eighty miles per hour through the city could not reasonably expect to avoid any collision by swerving at the last moment.”

The court distinguished Wagner v. State, 76 Wis.2d 30, 250 N.W.2d 331 (1977), a case in which a driver took pain and sleeping pills, then went out drinking before drag racing his car on a main city street and killing a pedestrian. The supreme court vacated the first-degree reckless homicide conviction because the driver swerved to avoid the pedestrian.

“This case is distinguishable from Wagner because Geske had ample notice that her victims might cross her path: a red light at an intersection,” Judge Hoover wrote. “In Wagner, the victim had unexpectedly appeared in Wagner’s path.”

The court also distinguished another “swerving case,” State v. Balistreri, involving a defendant who was not intoxicated, did not drive at the extreme speed that Geske did, and tried to avoid collisions and warn other motorists while escaping police in his vehicle.

“In fact, Balistreri’s lower speeds, sobriety, and evasive maneuvers combined to avoid the catastrophic type of collision that occurred here,” wrote Judge Hoover.

The appeals court also rejected Geske’s argument that results of a computer crash simulation prepared by the state’s expert was not disclosed properly to the defense before introduction on rebuttal, and lacked a foundation and probative value.

The three-judge appeals panel also upheld the sentencing court’s maximum sentence for the charge, 80 years imprisonment and 40 years extended supervision, noting that “[i]t was not unreasonable to conclude Geske falsely testified that she inadvertently accelerated through the red light because she was reaching for her little dog.”