The court in Levy ruled that New York State's accusatory instrument alleged that the defendant "operated" his vehicle recklessly and as such, the prosecution should not have been allowed to argue at trial that the defendant made a reckless "decision" to drive knowing he was prone to epileptic seizures. Suppose the state's accusatory instrument had been consistent with the prosecutor's argument. Do you think the prosecutor's argument would have merit? Should the voluntary act requirement for establishing an actus reus be satisfied by conduct that "includes" a voluntary act (i.e., the Model Penal Code "one-voluntary-act-is-enough rule")? Or should "'every act up to the moment of the crime" have to be voluntary.(People v. Levy):