State v. Olsen
462 N.W.2d 474 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish "reckless" conduct for a second-degree manslaughter charge, the prosecution must present evidence that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Evidence of mere negligence, carelessness, or a traffic violation that results in a death is insufficient without proof that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk they were creating.
Facts:
- On May 24, 1989, a clear and sunny day, Michael K. Olsen was driving a tractor west on Highway 46 at a slow speed.
- After traveling for approximately one-half mile, Olsen pulled over to the side of the road to allow a car behind him to pass.
- Shortly thereafter, Olsen began a left turn to cross the eastbound lane of traffic toward a gravel road.
- As Olsen's tractor was crossing the eastbound lane, it was struck by an oncoming car.
- The driver of the eastbound car was killed instantly in the collision.
- Immediately following the crash, Olsen ran from the tractor stating, “I didn’t see it.”
- Olsen later told the investigating highway patrol trooper that he had looked both ways before turning but did not see the approaching vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a complaint in magistrate court charging Michael K. Olsen with one count of manslaughter in the second degree.
- A preliminary hearing was held to determine if there was probable cause to proceed to trial.
- At the conclusion of the State's evidence at the hearing, Olsen's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint.
- The magistrate court granted Olsen's motion and dismissed the manslaughter charge, finding the evidence insufficient.
- The State, as the appellant, petitioned the South Dakota Supreme Court for permission to appeal the magistrate's intermediate order.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court granted the State's petition to hear the appeal.
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 failure to see an oncoming vehicle and subsequent failure to yield the right-of-way, which results in a fatal accident, constitute sufficient evidence of 'reckless' conduct to establish probable cause for a charge of second-degree manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Sabers, Justice
No. A driver's failure to see an oncoming vehicle and yield the right-of-way, resulting in a fatality, does not, without more, constitute reckless conduct sufficient for a manslaughter charge. The statutory definition of 'reckless' requires a 'conscious and unjustifiable disregard of a substantial risk,' which means the defendant must be subjectively aware of the risk and proceed anyway. The court distinguished this from negligence, where an actor is not aware of a risk but should have been. In this case, the State's evidence demonstrated only carelessness or inadvertence—Olsen's failure to yield—not that he was aware of the oncoming vehicle and consciously disregarded the risk. His immediate statement, 'I didn't see it,' supports the conclusion that he was unaware of the risk, making his conduct negligent rather than reckless.
Concurring - Henderson, Justice
No. This conduct does not rise to the level of recklessness required for a manslaughter conviction. Olsen's actions were a mistake of judgment, not the kind of egregious conduct seen in prior manslaughter cases which involved aggravating factors like alcohol, excessive speed, or high-speed chases. The evidence shows a young man driving a tractor slowly who made a 'thoughtless omission.' Prosecuting such an act as a felony would flood the courts and is not the intended purpose of the manslaughter statute; if there is a gap in the law between careless driving and manslaughter, it is the legislature's role to fill it.
Concurring - Wuest, Justice
No. The key factual question is whether Olsen saw the oncoming vehicle and tried to beat it (which would be reckless) or simply failed to see it (which would be negligent). The magistrate was entitled to assess the credibility of the evidence, including Olsen's spontaneous statement at the scene that he did not see the vehicle. Concluding from this credible, spontaneous statement that Olsen was unaware of the risk, the magistrate did not abuse his discretion in finding a lack of probable cause for a manslaughter charge.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between criminal recklessness and civil negligence in the context of vehicular homicides in South Dakota. By emphasizing the subjective requirement of 'conscious disregard,' the court raised the evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking manslaughter convictions from traffic fatalities. The ruling requires the state to prove the defendant's actual awareness of the risk, making it more difficult to elevate a charge from a traffic offense to a felony based solely on a tragic outcome. This precedent forces courts to focus on the defendant's mental state rather than just the consequences of their actions, thereby protecting drivers who make tragic but unknowing errors from severe criminal liability.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Olsen