State v. Apollonio.

*364Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

RECKTENWALD, C.J., in Which NAKAYAMA, J„ joins.

Defendant Ricardo Apollonio was charged with excessive speeding. Athough the oral charge did not allege Apollonio’s state of mind at the time of the incident, his trial counsel correctly recognized that the State was required to prove that Apollonio was, at the least, reckless, and argued at trial that the State had failed to carry that burden. Apollonio was convicted and appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed his conviction. At no time in the trial court or in the ICA did Apollonio…