State v. Munnell
344 N.W. 2d 883, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3022 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal vehicular operation statute predicated on ordinary negligence while under the influence of alcohol is not unconstitutionally vague or a denial of equal protection. The contributory negligence of the victim is not a defense to the crime, though it is relevant to determining the defendant's negligence and causation.
Facts:
- In the early morning of August 20, 1983, Marion Munnell was driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .11 percent.
- Kenneth Cloud, who had a blood alcohol concentration of at least .24 percent, was lying unconscious on Itasca County Highway #39.
- Munnell was traveling south on the highway when she swerved her vehicle across the double yellow center line.
- Munnell's car struck Cloud, and her right front and rear tires ran over him, causing his death.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota charged Marion Munnell with criminal vehicular operation in a state trial court.
- At a pre-trial omnibus hearing, Munnell moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
- Munnell also moved for a jury instruction stating that the victim's fault is a defense to the charge.
- The trial court denied both of Munnell's motions.
- Pursuant to a state procedural rule, the trial court certified four legal questions arising from the motions for pre-trial review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
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 criminal vehicular operation statute that imposes liability for causing a death through negligent driving while under the influence of alcohol violate the Constitution for being vague or denying equal protection, and is the victim's comparative fault a defense to prosecution under that statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Foley, Judge
No. A criminal vehicular operation statute based on ordinary negligence while under the influence does not violate the constitution, and a victim's fault is not a defense to the charge. The term 'negligence' is not unconstitutionally vague, as it has a well-established meaning in common law that provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct. The statute also does not violate equal protection by distinguishing between intoxicated and sober drivers, as this classification is rationally related to the state's compelling interest in highway safety. The court reasoned that the purposes of criminal law (public safety) and civil law (compensation) are different, making it rational to hold a defendant criminally liable even if they might not be civilly liable under comparative fault rules. Finally, long-standing Minnesota precedent establishes that a victim's contributory negligence is not a defense in a criminal prosecution, though it is relevant to the questions of the defendant's negligence and whether that negligence was the proximate cause of death.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that ordinary negligence, when combined with the act of driving under the influence, is a sufficient basis for serious criminal liability. It reinforces the critical distinction between criminal and civil standards of fault, clarifying that a defendant can be criminally culpable even if the victim was arguably more negligent. The ruling significantly strengthens the state's ability to prosecute drunk drivers by preventing them from using a victim's own negligence as a direct defense, thereby focusing the legal inquiry on the defendant's conduct and its causal link to the harm.
