The defendant, Bianca Bjorne, filed an appeal under her charges of reckless driving,

possession of a controlled substance and failure to properly insure her automobile. The
issues presented by the defendant are that the defendant should not have been convicted
with the following:
1. Reckless driving because there was insufficient evidence that she acted
involuntarily.
2. Possession of a controlled substance because there was insufficient evidence that
she constructively possessed marijuana.
3. License suspension due to failure to properly insure her automobile because the
defendant is new to the country and was unaware that the law required her to
have auto insurance.
In order to be convicted of reckless driving, there must be evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt proving that the individual did the following, Any person who drives
any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of
reckless driving. In this case, when the defendant was pulled over after failing to stop at
a stop sign, the defendant was beginning to slow down and pull over, but her friend Joe
slammed his foot on the gas pedal. Thus, Joes actions triggered the defendants vehicle
to reach speeds of 100 mph. There is clearly no evidence that proves that the defendant
willfully drove her vehicle without any regard to the safety of persons and property. In
order to convict the defendant under the statute of reckless driving, there must be a
voluntary act and the defendants actions of attempting to gain control of her vehicle after
Joe slammed on the gas pedal are proof that her act was not the product of the effort to
drive recklessly. Also, the defendant struggled with Joe to regain control of her vehicle is
sufficient evidence to prove that her act was not voluntary.

In order for the defendant to be convicted of the possession of a controlled substance,

the defendant must, have within his/her possession or control any controlled
substance. For the purpose of this statue, a controlled substance shall include: cocaine,
heroineand marijuana. The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence
proving that she constructively possessed marijuana. According to Miller v. State, the
appeals court stated that in order for possession of a controlled substance to be considered
constructive there must be proof that: the contraband is in plain view, whether the
contraband is found within the accuseds personal effectsetc. In this case, the
contraband was found in plain view of the defendants vehicle, thus allowing it to be
sufficient evidence to prove that there was indeed constructive possession.
It is required by statute for any operator or owner of a motor vehicle that is driven on
a highway, road, or other public property in the state to be insured under a motor vehicle
liability insurance policy. The failure to provide proof of a motor vehicle liability
insurance policy results in a suspension of a license. According to the defendant, because
she is new to this country she was unaware that the law required her to have auto
insurance, thus she failed to provide auto insurance. The failure to know the law is not a
legal defense for the defendants actions. Thus, the defendants license should have been
suspended because she failed to provide auto insurance that is required under statute.