State v. Lyerla
424 N.W.2d 908 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of attempted second-degree murder does not exist as a matter of law because the specific intent required for an "attempt" is logically inconsistent with the reckless state of mind (a "depraved mind") required for second-degree murder.
Facts:
- Gerald K. Lyerla was driving his vehicle on Interstate 90 on the same stretch of road as a pickup truck carrying three teenage girls.
- The two vehicles engaged in contentious driving, passing each other multiple times, and at one point the girls' truck accelerated to prevent Lyerla from overtaking them.
- Lyerla exited the interstate, loaded his .357 magnum pistol, and then re-entered the highway.
- When the girls' truck subsequently attempted to pass him, Lyerla fired three shots at the passenger side of their vehicle.
- One bullet struck and killed seventeen-year-old Tammy Jensen.
- The other two girls in the truck were injured by the gunfire but survived.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald K. Lyerla was charged in a South Dakota trial court with second-degree murder and two counts of attempted second-degree murder.
- A jury found Lyerla guilty on all counts.
- Lyerla appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
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 the crime of attempted second-degree murder exist in South Dakota, where the underlying offense of second-degree murder is defined by a reckless state of mind rather than a specific intent to kill?
Opinions:
Majority - Konenkamp, Circuit Judge
The crime of attempted second-degree murder is a logical impossibility and therefore does not exist in South Dakota. To commit an attempt, a defendant must possess the specific intent to commit the acts constituting the target offense. Second-degree murder, however, does not require a specific intent to kill; it requires a reckless state of mind, specifically, perpetrating an imminently dangerous act while evincing a depraved mind. It is a logical contradiction to say that one can have the specific intent to be reckless or to perpetrate an unintended killing. The mental state for attempt (specific intent) and the mental state for second-degree murder (recklessness) are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, the convictions for attempted second-degree murder must be reversed.
Dissenting - Sabers, J.
The crime of attempted second-degree murder is legally and logically possible. The majority incorrectly focuses on the intent to cause a result (death), when the focus should be on the intent to commit the criminal act. Lyerla intentionally committed the dangerous act of firing his gun at the vehicle. Under South Dakota law, the only intent necessary for an attempt is the intent to commit the act itself (a voluntary act), not an intent to achieve a specific result. Since Lyerla's intentional, dangerous act would have constituted second-degree murder if the other two girls had died, his conduct constitutes attempted second-degree murder because they survived. The convictions should be affirmed.
Concurring - Wuest, C.J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's judgment reversing the attempted second-degree murder convictions. The special concurrence focuses on the separate evidentiary issue, arguing that the question of which girl was driving the pickup truck was not relevant to whether the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder under the 'depraved mind' standard. The concurrence agrees with the result reached by the majority but writes separately to address procedural concerns.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in South Dakota that attempted second-degree murder is not a cognizable crime. The ruling clarifies the critical distinction between specific intent crimes and reckless/negligent crimes within the framework of inchoate offenses. By rejecting this hybrid crime, the court forces prosecutors to charge defendants with offenses that accurately reflect their mental state, such as attempted first-degree murder (where specific intent to kill is present) or aggravated assault. This aligns South Dakota with other jurisdictions that have found it logically impossible to attempt an unintentional homicide, thereby reinforcing the importance of mens rea consistency in criminal law.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Lyerla