Slusher v. State

I dissent. The convictions should be affirmed.

The majority of this Court has taken a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining the Slushers’ convictions for *103reckless homicide and turned it into an analysis of what “reasonable men” think of the following words:

“A person who recklessly kills another human being commits reckless homicide, a Class C felony.” IC 1976, 35-42-1-5 (Burns Code Ed., 1979 Repl.) (amended 1980).

The majority’s analytical approach leads it to conclude that the language of IC 35-42-1-5 is unconstitutionally “vague” thereby depriving the Slushers of their…