COA rejects sufficiency challenge for failure to control vehicle
State v. Jacob T. Thornburg, 2023AP600, 1/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an appeal following a bench trial for an alleged violation of the traffic code, COA rejects the pro se appellant’s arguments and affirms.
Thornburg was involved in a crash on I-94 that involved icy road conditions. (¶2). After the accident, the State issued a citation pursuant to § 346.57(2), unreasonable and imprudent speed. (Id.). After failing to prevail at the bench trial, Thornburg renews his argument on appeal that that he was not responsible for the accident and used “due care” in operating his vehicle before encountering an unforeseen patch of ice on the road. (¶7). While ordinary civil forfeitures are decided using a preponderance standard, COA clarifies that the higher clear and convincing standard applies when the acts are “closely associated with acts of a criminal nature.” (¶10). While neither party attempts to explain whether this particular offense satisfies that standard, COA notes that the applicable jury instruction tells the finder of fact to apply the higher burden because criminal penalties may apply. (Id.). Accordingly, COA applies the sufficiency test in context of this heightened burden of proof.
Unfortunately, that standard of review is still an imposing one. Thornburg fails to overcome it here. The mere fact that the road conditions were noted as “unfavorable” by the responding officer, in conjunction with evidence that Thornburg lost control of his car, gives rise to an inference “that Thornburg was driving at a speed that was not reasonable and prudent under the circumstances and that, because of this manner of driving, Thornburg lost control of his vehicle and became involved in a collision with another vehicle.” (¶15). Accordingly, applying a deferential standard of review, COA affirms.