Despite claims of double jeopardy and insufficient evidence, the state Superior Court has upheld the conviction of Daniel Oaks II for the 2018 fatal crash in Duke Center that claimed the life of one and seriously injured three others.

Oaks, 38, was convicted at jury trial in 2021 of five counts of recklessly endangering another person, but a mistrial was declared on the remaining charges — homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, and three counts of aggravated assault by vehicle. In August 2022, a second jury trial was held, and Oaks was convicted of those charges.

He was sentenced to incarceration in state prison for a term of 19 months to 56 months.

District Attorney Stephanie Vettenburg-Shaffer said testimony showed Oaks was driving at an excessive speed when his car left the road, striking a truck parked in a yard. The crash killed his passenger, Alyssa Hawk, 28, and seriously injured three men — Sam Pearce, Cody Pearce and Justin McDivitt.

The passenger side of Oaks’ vehicle struck the truck before rotating and forcing the truck into a porch near three men standing nearby. The men were flung through the air 30 to 60 feet, all suffering serious injuries, Shaffer said.

An accident reconstruction specialist who testified at trial estimated Oaks’ speed at 88 mph at the time of the crash.

In the appeal, Oaks’ attorney, Kelsey Lewis of St. Marys, alleged insufficient evidence to support that Oaks’ actions caused Hawk’s death or that the injuries of the three victims were serious. The judges noted that they are an appeals court, and a jury is a fact finder. They cannot “re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.”

The decision noted, too, that but for being a passenger in Oaks’ car at the time of the crash, when Oaks’ conduct caused the crash, Hawk’s death would not have occurred. The seriousness of the injuries of the three men was detailed, with the judges noting the evidence proved that as well.

Oaks also argued that because the charges of homicide, manslaughter and assault were all elements of the recklessly endangering charges in the first trial, it was double jeopardy to try him on those charges at the second trial.

Pointing out a prior, precedent-setting decision, the Superior Court judges noted, “It is well settled, however, that a defendant may be retried, without violating double jeopardy principles, after a first trial yields a deadlocked jury.”

The elements of those charges differ from the elements of the recklessly endangering charges, meaning retrial did not constitute double jeopardy, the judges wrote.