Opinion ID: 1937611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty.

Text: Martin contends that no evidence was introduced at trial showing that he intentionally, recklessly, or negligently left the truck on the highway. We first reject any argument made which would require the State to show that Martin had any specific intent to kill when he left the garbage truck on the highway. SDCL 22-16-20, under which Martin was charged, states: Any reckless killing of one human being by the act or procurement of another which, under the provisions of this chapter, is neither murder nor manslaughter in the first degree, nor excusable nor justifiable homicide, is manslaughter in the second degree. Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class 4 felony. (Emphasis added.) A killing under this statute must be reckless. Reckless is defined at SDCL 22-1-2(1)(d): The words `reckless, recklessly' and all derivatives thereof, import a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of a substantial risk that the offender's conduct may cause a certain result or may be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when he consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk that such circumstances may exist[.] Neither SDCL 22-16-20 nor SDCL 22-1-2(1)(d) require any specific intent as an element of second-degree manslaughter. In State v. Sabers, 442 N.W.2d 259, 266 (S.D.1989), we stated that: In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the question is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that determination, the Court will accept that evidence, and the most favorable inferences drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict. This determination `may depend upon the difference between pure speculation and legitimate inference from proven facts.' State v. Sitting Crow, 428 N.W.2d 268, 270 (S.D.1988) (citations omitted). Martin's main attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is that there was no reckless killing. In addition, he argues that there was no evidence indicating that he abandoned the garbage truck. We disagree. State's evidence showed that Martin had hot-wired a garbage truck, which did not belong to him and drove it on an interstate highway. He continued to attempt to drive the truck when it was obvious that it was not operating properly. When the truck finally came to rest, it was parked so that it protruded in excess of eight feet into the driving lane. He did not stay with the vehicle in an attempt to warn other motorists. Further, depending on which of his versions is to be believed, he either (1) went into a corn field and hid, or (2) rather than going to the nearest, obviously inhabited dwelling to seek assistance, Martin went to a dark, uninhabited building. [4] In doing so, he left a large garbage truck, with one taillight functioning, occupying two-thirds of the main lane of traffic, in the dark, on an interstate highway, with nothing in its immediate area to warn the traveling public of its presence. (We observe from photographs in evidence that the Kortan vehicle was virtually decapitated by the collision but the garbage truck does not show visual signs of damage. This evidence is further proof of the substantial risk of danger a stationary garbage truck presents on the road.) The evidence was sufficient for the jury to determine that Martin disregarded the substantial risk the presence of the garbage truck created by leaving it improperly parked and improperly lit on the interstate highway and by abandoning the scene. Interestingly, it is clear from the evidence that Martin made no contact with anyone, prior to his arrest, regarding the truck on the interstate. In fact, after he left the truck and heard an explosion in the same area, he did not go back to the truck to see if anyone had been injured. He testified that he merely continued to walk down the road. These facts support the conclusion that he abandoned the truck. The evidence was therefore sufficient for the jury to determine that Martin's acts were reckless as contemplated by the statute. [5] SDCL 22-1-2(1)(d); SDCL 22-16-20.