State v. Larson
582 N.W.2d 15 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver's conduct rises from mere negligence to criminal recklessness sufficient for a manslaughter conviction when they are aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, such as visible construction workers, and consciously disregard that risk by operating their vehicle in a dangerous manner, for example, by speeding.
Facts:
- On September 16, 1996, a highway construction crew was working in the right lane of eastbound Interstate 90, which was separated from the driving lane by 'candlestick' dividers.
- The highway had a posted speed limit of 75 m.p.h. but a posted recommended speed of 55 m.p.h. through the construction zone.
- Brian Larson drove his Ford Explorer at a speed estimated between 62 and 68 m.p.h.
- Larson's vehicle crossed over the center line and drove approximately one and one-half feet into the closed construction lane for about 101 feet.
- In the one second his vehicle was in the closed lane, Larson struck and killed two construction workers, Julie Smith and Brandon Koehn.
- In a taped conversation after the accident, Larson told a trooper he saw the work crew and was aware he was traveling at 60 m.p.h. in what he believed to be a 40 m.p.h. zone.
- Larson did not apply the brakes until after his vehicle had passed through the work area and entered the median.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Larson was charged in a South Dakota trial court with two counts of second-degree manslaughter.
- Following a trial, a jury found Larson guilty on both counts.
- Larson made a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove 'recklessness'.
- The trial court denied Larson's motion.
- Larson (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the Supreme Court of South Dakota, and the State (appellee) responded.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver's conduct of traveling 7-13 mph over the recommended speed limit through a visible highway construction zone, veering into the closed-off work lane, and striking and killing two workers constitute sufficient evidence of 'recklessness' to support a conviction for second-degree manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Sabers, Justice
Yes, this conduct constitutes sufficient evidence of 'recklessness.' The court held that recklessness is distinguished from negligence by the defendant's state of mind: a reckless actor is aware of a substantial risk and consciously disregards it, whereas a negligent actor is not aware but should have been. The court reasoned that Larson's speed of 62 to 68 m.p.h. in the presence of a visible road construction crew, which he admitted seeing, constituted a conscious disregard for the safety of the crew. This combination of high speed, awareness of the hazard, and veering into the closed lane was more than a mere traffic violation and provided sufficient evidence for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, distinguishing it from cases involving only momentary inattention or a simple traffic violation.
Dissenting - Amundson, Justice
No, this conduct constitutes ordinary negligence, not criminal recklessness. The dissent argued that recklessness requires a subjective 'conscious disregard' of a risk, and there was no evidence Larson was consciously aware he was drifting out of his lane. The tragic result was caused by the momentary, unconscious act of drifting, not by his speed, which was only slightly above the recommended limit and below the legal limit. The majority, according to the dissent, improperly applied an objective 'should have known' standard, which defines negligence, rather than the subjective standard required for recklessness. Without evidence of erratic driving leading up to the incident, Larson's actions were akin to inadvertent carelessness, not a conscious disregard of risk.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between negligence and criminal recklessness in vehicular homicide law. The court's decision establishes that recklessness does not require a prolonged pattern of dangerous driving; it can be found in a single course of conduct where a driver consciously disregards an obvious, immediate, and substantial risk. The precedent impacts future prosecutions by allowing an inference of a culpable mental state from the act of speeding in a clearly hazardous and marked area, like a construction zone with visible workers. This lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors compared to cases where recklessness must be proven through a history of erratic maneuvers or impairment.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Larson