How have the courts treated a charge of reckless driving in a motor vehicle case?

Indeed, if the People believed defendant guilty of causing the collision, they could have charged defendant with reckless driving ( 23103), driving under the influence ( 23152, subd. (a)), or some other charge which would have incorporated at least some culpability for the collision and not just fleeing afterward. If defendant was convicted of such a charge, victim restitution for the collision would then be appropriate. In fact, even if defendant was not convicted of such a charge, but the plea agreement included a Harvey⁶ waiver, restitution could still be imposed for the consequences of the collision. ( People v. Snow (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 932, 937, fn. 5, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 41.) Here, although defendant executed a Harvey waiver as part of his plea, there were no other charges in the felony complaint and defendant's plea did incorporate any agreement by the People not to file any further charges.

The People might argue that by fleeing, defendant ensured any evidence of his culpability in the collision was thereby eradicated. ( People v. Carbajal, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1124, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67 ["By leaving the scene of the accident, the fleeing driver deprives the nonfleeing driver of his or her right to have responsibility for the accident adjudicated in an orderly way according to the rules of law.") However, a review of the contents of the police report reveals this is not the case.