State v. Larson

582 N.W.2d 15 · 1998

Facts

On September 16, 1996, a highway construction crew was working in a closed lane of eastbound Interstate 90, with a recommended speed limit of 55 mph. Brian Larson drove his Ford Explorer between 62 and 68 mph through the construction zone. He crossed the center line and drove into the closed lane for 101 feet, striking and killing two construction workers, Julie Smith and Brandon Koehn. Larson was aware of the construction zone and saw the crew, but did not brake until after entering the median. He later stated he was in his lane and believed the speed limit was 40 mph, admitting he was driving faster than he should.

Procedural history

Brian Larson was convicted of two counts of second degree manslaughter. He appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal to this court. The court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Issue

Was there sufficient evidence of "recklessness" to support Brian Larson's convictions for second degree manslaughter, given his conduct in the construction zone? Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting expert and eyewitness testimony on tire tracks or photographs of the victims' bodies?

Holding

The court affirmed the denial of Larson's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of recklessness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding tire tracks or photographs of the victims' bodies.

Rule

Recklessness, under SDCL 22-1-2(1)(d), requires a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of a substantial risk that one's conduct may cause a certain result. It demands more than ordinary negligence, focusing on the actor's awareness of the risk. Awareness can be established by actions indicating a reckless disregard for safety. While a traffic violation alone may not suffice, excessive speed combined with awareness of a visible construction crew and veering into a closed lane can constitute recklessness. Evidentiary rulings, including expert testimony and photographs, are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are admissible if relevant and more probative than prejudicial.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.