McCLANAHAN, Judge.
David Alan Stevens appeals his conviction for aggravated involuntary manslaughter in violation of Code § 18.2-36.1. He contends that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to foreclose prosecution of the aggravated involuntary manslaughter charge on the ground that the Commonwealth did not comply with the procedural requirements of a driving under the influence (DUI) charge; (2) failing to exclude a hospital toxicology report based on insufficient proof of reliability; (3) failing to instruct the jury on criminal negligence; and (4) finding the evidence sufficient to prove he was guilty of aggravated involuntary manslaughter. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court.
I. Background
On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 265 Va. 505, 514, 578 S.E.2d 781, 786 (2003). That principle requires us to “ ‘discard the evidence of the accused in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’ ” Kelly v. Commonwealth, 41 Va.App. 250, 254, 584 S.E.2d 444, 446 (2003) (en [128]*128banc) (quoting Watkins v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 335, 348, 494 S.E.2d 859, 866 (1998)).
So viewed, on June 29, 2002, appellant struck an automobile driven by Barry Childers while Childers was turning left at an intersection. As a result, Heather Watson, a passenger in Childers’ vehicle, was killed. Volunteer rescue workers treated appellant at the scene, and appellant told one of them that he had been drinking “lots and lots and lots,” and had come from a bar. Appellant was transported to a local hospital emergency room. Appellant’s hospital admission records show that appellant stated he had consumed “between 12 — 24 beers” and “[more than] 18 beers” prior to the accident.
After the accident, the Loudoun County Sheriffs Office dispatched Deputy Chris Coderre to the hospital to arrest appellant. Appellant was waiting to undergo a Computed Axial Tomography scan when Coderre located him. Coderre said he could clearly smell alcohol in the room that appellant was in, the smell being especially obvious in the hospital’s sterile environment. After the scan, Coderre spoke to appellant and informed him that he was under arrest for DUI.Coderre read the implied consent law to appellant,1 explained the procedure, and asked him to submit to a blood test, to which appellant agreed. Coderre watched a hospital lab technician draw two vials of appellant’s blood and seal, package, tape and initial them. Once the blood was drawn, Coderre informed appellant of his right to an independent analysis of the blood sample, asked him if he wished to have it done, and, if so, to sign the form authorizing the test. Coderre offered appellant the form and his pen, upon which appellant stated, “I’m too f — ed up. I can’t sign sh — .” Coderre kept the form with a vial of appellant’s blood and took it with him when he left the hospital. The form and blood sample remained locked in the trunk of Coderre’s police cruiser until the following Monday [129]*129when Coderre submitted it to the Department of Forensic Sciences for testing. An analysis of this blood sample showed appellant’s blood alcohol content was .21. The hospital’s blood toxicology report indicated that appellant’s blood alcohol content was .24 or .25. On July 1, 2002, the Commonwealth charged appellant with driving under the influence, pursuant to Code § 18.2-266, and aggravated involuntary manslaughter, pursuant to Code § 18.2-36.1.
At a pretrial hearing, the trial court suppressed the implied consent blood sample analysis and precluded the Commonwealth from using the presumption of intoxication pursuant to Code § 18.2-269. The trial court based its ruling on a finding that the Commonwealth had failed to arrest appellant within the statutorily mandated period after the incident as required by Code § 18.2-268.2.2 The court also ruled that appellant had not properly been provided the form requesting independent analysis of the blood sample. The court therefore dismissed prosecution of charges under Code § 18.2-266(DUI) but allowed the Commonwealth to proceed with prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1 (aggravated involuntary manslaughter). After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of aggravated involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
II. Analysis
A. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Allowing Prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1
Appellant asserts, relying on Hall v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 616, 627, 529 S.E.2d 829, 835 (2000), that a prosecution for aggravated involuntary manslaughter under Code § 18.2-36.1 is inherently a prosecution for DUI under Code § 18.2-266 and, therefore, the Commonwealth must [130]*130comply with all of the code provisions related to a prosecution for DUI. In Hall, this Court stated,
The manslaughter statute under which appellant was tried expressly references a violation of Code § 18.2-266 as the predicate for prosecution of aggravated manslaughter. By the express wording of the statute, a prosecution for a violation of Code § 18.2-36.1 is necessarily a “prosecution under [Code] § 18.2-266.” Code § 18.2-267(E). The Commonwealth can prove a violation of Code § 18.2-36.1 if and only if it proves a violation of Code § 18.2-266. Thus, we hold that Code § 18.2-267(E) applies to bar introduction of the results of the preliminary analysis because a prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1 includes as an element of the offense proof of violation of Code § 18.2-266.
Hall, 32 Va.App. at 627, 529 S.E.2d at 835. Based on that holding, appellant contends that the trial court should have dismissed the aggravated manslaughter charge under Code § 18.2-36.1 on the ground that the Commonwealth did not comply with the procedural requirements of Code § 18.2-268.6, a provision concerning the transmission of blood samples.
An involuntary manslaughter conviction under Code § 18.2-36.1 requires a finding that the defendant was driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs, as specified in clauses (ii), (in) and (iv) of Code § 18.2-266.Code of Virginia, Title 18.2, Chapter 7, Article 2 governs the prosecution of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and includes Code § 18.2-266 as well as Code §§ 18.2-268.1 through -268.11, which provide the steps for conducting breath and blood tests as related to the implied consent law.
At the time of appellant’s arrest, Code § 18.2-268.2(B) provided that “[a]ny person so arrested for a violation of [Code] § 18.2-266(i) or (ii) or both, or [Code] § 18.2-266.1 ... shall submit to a breath test. If the breath test is unavailable or the person is physically unable to submit to the breath test, a blood test shall be given.” Code § 18.2-268.6 required that when a blood sample was drawn, the arresting officer must [131]*131give the accused a form setting forth the procedures for obtaining an independent analysis of the blood sample.3 Code § 18.2-268.11 provides that the steps for conducting the breath and blood tests are procedural and require only substantial compliance. Appellant argues that the procedures are mandatory in an arrest under Code § 18.2-36.1, that the accused must receive the independent analysis form, and because he did not receive the form, the charge should have been dismissed. We disagree for the following reasons.
While it is true that Hall stands for the proposition that a prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1 is necessarily a prosecution under Code § 18.2-266, the application of the rule in Hall is much narrower than appellant argues. In Hall, the Court held that preliminary analysis of a breath test was inadmissible in an aggravated manslaughter prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1, because the breath test results in that case were introduced to prove a violation of Code § 18.2-266, which is not permissible under Code § 18.2-267(E). The holding in Hall is limited to Code § 18.2-267, a statute that, among other provisions, prohibits admitting into evidence preliminary test results that are used to determine whether an arrest should be made for a violation of Code § 18.2-266. On the other hand, Code § 18.2-36.1 specifically predicates prosecution under that statute upon a violation of either clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Code § 18.2-266. In addition, the implied consent law and related statutes are invoked post-arrest, when a violation of DUI has already been charged, and prescribe procedures for taking and testing blood samples. In fact, as the trial court stated, and as we point out below, if the Commonwealth had decided to charge appellant under “[Code] § 18.2-36.1 alone, he would not be able to insist upon the independent analysis test afforded him under Code § 18.2-268.6.”
[132]*132Results from a blood test are not necessary or required for a prosecution under Code § 18.2-266(ii), (iii), or (iv), and, thus, are not required for prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1. See Oliver v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 20, 24, 577 S.E.2d 514, 516 (2003) (“Test results from a breath or blood test are not necessary or required to prove driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”). Only clause (i) of Code § 18.2-266, “the per se statute predicating guilt on blood alcohol content alone,” requires blood test results. Cutright v. Commonwealth, 43 Va.App. 593, 598, 601 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Code § 18.2-36.1 does not require that the Commonwealth establish a violation of clause (i) of Code § 18.2-266; it only requires that a violation of clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv) be shown. If the General Assembly intended to require a blood test for prosecution for involuntary manslaughter, it would have tied that involuntary manslaughter statute to clause (i) and not just clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv). Thus, “ ‘the result of a [blood] analysis is but auxiliary proof which may tend to corroborate evidence of the objective symptoms [of being under the influence of alcohol].’ ” Thurston v. Lynchburg, 15 Va.App. 475, 483, 424 S.E.2d 701, 705-06 (1992) (quoting Brooks v. City of Newport News, 224 Va. 311, 316, 295 S.E.2d 801, 804 (1982)). The jury properly convicted appellant on all the other evidence showing he was intoxicated, including appellant’s own admissions, without any blood test results.
The evidence in this case showed that appellant admitted to consuming twelve to twenty-four beers and that Coderre and two other witnesses smelled a “strong odor” of alcohol when in the appellant’s presence. When asked if he had been drinking, appellant answered yes, “lots and lots and lots.” At the hospital, appellant stated that he was “too f — ed up” and couldn’t sign anything. Such evidence, which we also discuss below, is enough to support a finding of intoxication and therefore a violation under Code § 18.2-266(ii)(iii) or (iv), without the blood test. A blood test is not required to prove intoxication for prosecution under clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Code § 18.2-266, and, by extension, is, therefore, not required for prosecution under Code § 18.2-36.1.
[133]*133Neither Code § 18.2-268.6, the implied consent law, nor any of the other statutes related to the implied consent law refer to Code § 18.2-36.1.Code §§ 18.2-268.2, -268.3, -268.4, - 268.5, -268.8, -268.9 and -268.10 specifically state that they apply to violations of Code §§ 18.2-266 or -266.1 or (except - 268.9) “a similar ordinance,”4 but do not mention Code § 18.2-36.1.5 In addition to allowing prosecution for refusal to submit to a blood test under Code §§ 18.2-266 and -266.1, Code § 18.2-268.3 also specifies that a prosecution for refusal to submit to a blood test is available under a prosecution for maiming a person as a result of driving while intoxicated pursuant to Code § 18.2-51.4. It is important to note that Code § 18.2-51.4 is the equivalent of Code § 18.2-36.1(B), except that it applies in cases of “serious bodily injury of another person resulting in permanent and significant physical impairment” instead of death. Had the General Assembly intended to have the implied consent law and its related statutory provisions apply to Code § 18.2-36.1, it would have specifically included it in the language of those statutes; however, it did not. See Cummings v. Fulghum, 261 Va. 73, 77, 540 S.E.2d 494, 496 (2001) (“When the [plain] language in a statute is clear and unambiguous, we are bound by the plain meaning of that language.”). Therefore, its omission makes it apparent that the legislature intended to exclude it from those procedural hurdles.
Appellant argues, based on Artis v. City of Suffolk, 19 Va.App. 168, 450 S.E.2d 165 (1994), and Shoemaker v. Com[134]*134monwealth, 18 Va.App. 61, 441 S.E.2d 354 (1994), that the officer’s failure to ensure that appellant took delivery of the form is fatal to his conviction and, thus, requires dismissal of the aggravated manslaughter charge. Artis held that merely showing a form to the accused is insufficient to comply with the requirement that the form be given to the accused and, therefore, requires dismissal of the DUI charge. Artis, 19 Va.App. at 170-71, 450 S.E.2d at 166-67. Shoemaker held that failure to substantially comply with Code § 18.2-268.6 required dismissal of the DUI charge on the rationale that independent test results could have provided the accused with exculpatory evidence. Shoemaker, 18 Va.App. at 64, 441 S.E.2d at 356. However, in both of those cases, the defendant was charged with DUI under Code § 18.2-266. Neither of those eases have anything to do with a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter under Code § 18.2-36.1, the statute at issue in the instant case.6
Appellant also relies on Hall. As discussed above, the Hall holding does not apply to the facts of this case and, therefore, does not compel a dismissal of appellant’s aggravated involuntary manslaughter charge. The remedy for a finding that there was not substantial compliance with the provisions related to the implied consent law is dismissal of the DUI charge. That was the result in Artis and Shoemaker and that was the result in this case: appellant’s DUI charge was dismissed. The trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the aggravated involuntary manslaughter charge.
B. The Court Did Not Err in Admitting the Hospital Toxicology Report
Appellant argues that, because the Commonwealth failed to affirmatively show a reliable foundation for the [135]*135hospital toxicology report, it was error for the court to admit it into evidence. We disagree.
Appellant concedes that Code § 19.2-187.027 addresses the hearsay nature of the hospital records, but that it does not overcome or eliminate the requirements for admission of scientific evidence on a proper foundation. See Essex v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 273, 322 S.E.2d 216 (1984). He contends that in spite of the statute allowing admission of hospital blood tests, those tests must also meet the requirements of Code § 18.2-268.5, which relate to the handling of blood samples taken pursuant to the implied consent law.
Blood tests performed by medical personnel in a hospital emergency room are not subject to the requirements of Code § 18.2-268.5. That statute applies only to blood drawn under the implied consent law. The statute begins, “[f]or purposes of this article ...,” which clearly and strictly limits its application only to DUI prosecutions.
Code § 19.2-187.02 allows the records to be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
[The] business records exception to the hearsay rule ... allows introduction “into evidence of verified regular [business] entries without requiring proof from the original observers or record keepers.” Neeley v. Johnson, 215 Va. 565, 571, 211 S.E.2d 100, 106 (1975).... “Admission of such evidence is conditioned ... on proof that the document comes from the proper custodian and that it is a record kept in the ordinary course of business made contemporaneously with the event by persons having the duty to keep a true record.” “Automatic” Sprinkler [Corp. of America v. Coley [136]*136& Petersen, Inc., 219 Va. 781, 793, 250 S.E.2d 765, 773 (1979)]....
Sparks v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 279, 282, 482 S.E.2d 69, 70 (1997). The toxicology report was shown to be a business record, recorded in the regular course of hospital business, contemporaneously made, and authenticated by its authorized custodian. This is a sufficient foundation for the admissibility of the hospital blood test as a business record. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hospital toxicology report under the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule, as evidence of the truth of its content.
C. The Court Did Not Err in Denying Appellant’s Proposed Jury Instructions
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying three of his proposed jury instructions, “W,” “Y,” and “Z.” He contends that the denial of these instructions prevented him from presenting his theory of the case to the jury. Instruction “W” describes three degrees of negligence: ordinary, willful, and criminal. Instructions “Y” and “Z” raise the issue of whether Watson’s death was directly caused by appellant’s actions.
“A reviewing court’s responsibility in reviewing jury instructions is ‘to see that the law has been clearly stated and that the instructions cover all issues which the evidence fairly raises.’ ” Darnell v. Commonwealth, 6 Va.App. 485, 488, 370 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1988) (quoting Swisher v. Swisher, 223 Va. 499, 503, 290 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1982)). When reviewing a trial judge’s decision refusing a proffered jury instruction, “ ‘the appropriate standard of review requires that we view the evidence with respect to the refused instruction in the light most favorable to [the proponent of the instruction].’ ” Hartigan v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 243, 257, 522 S.E.2d 406, 412 (1999) (quoting Boone v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 130, 131, 415 S.E.2d 250, 251 (1992)).
The jury instructions approved by the trial court in this case are the same as those upheld by this Court in Hall. In Hall, [137]*137we noted that these instructions “substantially tracked the language of Code § 18.2-36.1 and the Virginia Model Jury Instructions” and that they “adequately stated the elements of the offense.” Hall, 32 Va.App. at 635, 529 S.E.2d at 839. As in Hall, the trial court was justified in approving an instruction that clearly and simply stated the elements of the crime and the findings that were necessary for a conviction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit Instruction “W,” as it would not have clarified any element of the law and could have confused the jury by introducing additional issues not present in the law under which appellant was prosecuted. Instructions “Y” and “Z” were properly refused as another instruction already dealt with the issues of causation. These additional instructions would have been needlessly redundant. “It is not desirable to multiply instructions. Moreover, any instruction that is given should relate to the specific evidence in the case and should not incorrectly state the law or mislead the jury____ [T]he trial judge may properly refuse any instructions that are misleading or redundant.” Diffendal v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 417, 423, 382 S.E.2d 24, 26-27 (1989) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). We hold that trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to refuse the instructions.
D. The Evidence Was Sufficient As a Matter of Law
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we “ ‘presume the judgment of the trial court to be correct’ ” and reverse only if the trial court’s decision is “ ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’ ” Kelly, 41 Va.App. at 257, 584 S.E.2d at 447 (quoting Davis v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 96, 99, 570 S.E.2d 875, 876-77 (2002)); see also McGee v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 193, 197-98, 487 S.E.2d 259, 261 (1997) (en banc). This means the jury’s verdict cannot be overturned on appeal unless no “ ‘rational trier of fact’ ” could have come to the conclusion it did. Kelly, 41 Va.App. at 257, 584 S.E.2d at 447 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d [138]*138560 (1979)); Seaton v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 739, 746, 595 S.E.2d 9, 13 (2004); Pease v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 342, 355, 573 S.E.2d 272, 278 (2002) (en banc) (“We let the decision stand unless we conclude no rational juror could have reached that decision.”), aff'd, 266 Va. 397, 588 S.E.2d 149 (2003). A reviewing court does not “ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19, 99 S.Ct. at 2789 (emphasis in original and citation omitted). We must instead ask whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Kelly, 41 Va.App. at 257, 584 S.E.2d at 447 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789) (emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hoambrecker v. City of Lynchburg, 13 Va.App. 511, 514, 412 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1992). “ ‘This familiar standard gives fall play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.’” Kelly, 41 Va.App. at 257-58, 584 S.E.2d at 447 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789).
Appellant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove: (1) that he was intoxicated; (2) that he caused Watson’s death; and (3) that his conduct was gross, wanton and culpable. There is sufficient evidence in the record on each of these elements to support the jury’s decision to convict.
Appellant first argues that the Commonwealth did not prove he was intoxicated. On the contrary, the hospital toxicology report revealed that appellant’s blood alcohol content was .24 or .25, approximately three times the legal limit in Virginia. The Commonwealth presented expert testimony on the mental and physical effects that normally accompany a blood alcohol content greater than .20. There was evidence that appellant asked after the accident, “What did I hit?,” admitted he did not remember the accident, that he consumed between twelve and twenty-four beers, and that after the accident he stated that he was “too f — ed up” and couldn’t sign anything. [139]*139Witnesses also testified that appellant was mumbling, disoriented, and had a strong odor of alcohol about his person. Finally, the Commonwealth presented evidence that there was a lack of skid marks at the scene of the accident, from which the jury could conclude that appellant’s driving behavior at the time of the accident was out of the ordinary and was affected by his intoxicated state. Thus, the record contains sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that appellant was intoxicated.
Appellant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he caused Watson’s death. He contends that the Commonwealth only proved that he struck the vehicle Watson was riding in, and that evidence was insufficient to prove that her death was caused by his intoxication. Appellant claims that Childers’ testimony was inconsistent and that Childers was at fault because he should have seen and yielded to appellant’s vehicle. The Commonwealth presented evidence that Childers’ vehicle had the right-of-way and that appellant ran a red light. Childers testified that he had received a green arrow before he began turning his vehicle. The Commonwealth also presented an expert in traffic signals who testified that if Childers received a green arrow, appellant would have faced a red light at the time of the accident. Appellant presented no evidence that would prevent any reasonable juror from believing the testimony of Childers or the expert witness. The lack of skid marks — indicating appellant’s failure to stop or slow down before the impact — could also lead the jury to conclude that appellant’s failure to notice the other car before striking it caused the accident. Therefore, the record contains sufficient evidence to allow the jury to conclude that appellant’s driving while intoxicated caused Watson’s death.
Appellant also argues with regard to causation that Childers’ testimony is inconsistent with a finding that he had the right-of-way. Appellant contends that because Childers did not see appellant’s car before entering the intersection, he could not have been attentive to the traffic signal. However,
[140]*140All of the authorities agree contributory negligence has no place in a case of involuntary manslaughter [and] if the criminal negligence of the [accused] is found to be the cause of the death, [he] is criminally responsible, whether the decedent’s failure to use due care contributed to the injury or not.
Bell v. Commonwealth, 170 Va. 597, 616, 195 S.E. 675, 683 (1938).
Only if the conduct of the deceased amounts to an independent, intervening act alone causing the fatal injury can the accused be exonerated from liability for his or her criminal negligence. Mayo v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 644, 647, 238 S.E.2d 831, 833 (1977). In such case, the conduct of the accused becomes a remote cause. Delawder v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 55, 57, 196 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1973).
Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 1, 14, 413 S.E.2d 875, 882 (1992). Therefore, the conduct of another party plays no part in the case, unless that conduct is proven to be an independent, intervening cause, rendering the defendant’s negligence so remote it ceases to be a proximate cause of the accident. Appellant did not prove such in this case.
Finally, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty of gross, wanton and culpable conduct. Appellant relies on Jetton v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 557, 561, 347 S.E.2d 141, 144 (1986), in which this Court stated that in order to find gross, wanton and culpable conduct there must be multiple factors other than intoxication to show such conduct. Appellant asserts that the only relevant conduct to be considered is that he ran a red light. He contends that single act is so common an occurrence that it fails to rise to the level of gross, wanton and culpable conduct.
While involuntary manslaughter convictions often involve multiple acts exhibiting gross, wanton and culpable conduct, a single act is sufficient to establish such conduct. In Hall, this Court upheld an involuntary manslaughter conviction upon facts that are substantially similar to the instant [141]*141case. In Hall, the appellant was convicted after his truck collided with a motorcycle, killing the cyclist. 32 Va.App. at 621, 529 S.E.2d at 832. In that case, the only conduct attributed to the appellant was having a blood alcohol content greater than .20 and running a red light. This Court ruled that “[t]he Commonwealth’s evidence was competent, was not inherently incredible, and was sufficient to prove appellant drove his vehicle in a ‘gross, wanton and culpable’ manner.” Id. at 632, 529 S.E.2d at 837.
Neither intoxication nor running a red light alone may be sufficient to establish gross, wanton, and culpable conduct. However, the combination of appellant’s extreme intoxication, ignoring traffic signals and running a red light, striking a vehicle without slowing down or braking and asking, “What did I hit?,” is sufficient evidence for a jury to find gross, wanton and culpable conduct.
Accordingly, the record clearly provides sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that appellant knowingly engaged in conduct “so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard of human life,” which proximately caused the accident and resulted in Watson’s death.
III. Conclusion
We hold that the trial court did not err in permitting prosecution of the aggravated involuntary manslaughter charge under Code § 18.2-36.1, admitting the hospital toxicology report, or by refusing appellant’s proffered jury instructions. We also conclude that the record includes sufficient evidence for a jury to convict appellant of aggravated involuntary manslaughter. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.