State v. Chapman

Peter J. Chapman raises two issues in this appeal from his conviction for first-degree intentional homicide. First, he maintains that the trial court erred in not submitting the instruction on the lesser included offense of second-degree reckless homicide. We conclude that the trial court did not err because a reasonable view of and fair inferences drawn from the evidence would not support a conviction of second-degree reckless homicide. Second, Chapman claims that he has been denied a constitutional right to presentence confinement credit. We Eire satisfied that there is a rational basis for…