Opinion ID: 489376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: S.D.C.L. Sec. 32-23-1(1)

Text: 34 One of the four unlawful acts which the indictment alleged McMillan committed was violation of S.D.C.L. Sec. 32-23-1(1), driving a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol content of .10 or more. McMillan contends that this offense should not have been included as an unlawful act because section 32-23-1(1) is a strict liability offense requiring no culpable mental state for violation, while a conviction under the federal involuntary manslaughter statute requires a finding of gross negligence. McMillan argues that because a person cannot commit a strict liability crime in a grossly negligent manner, the offense cannot serve as the underlying act for his conviction. 35 We are not persuaded by McMillan's argument. As noted, the indictment and the jury instructions, as well as the arguments of both counsel, made clear to the jury that in addition to finding that McMillan committed an unlawful act, a finding of gross negligence was necessary before a guilty verdict could be returned. The jury was not instructed that driving with a .10 blood alcohol content was in itself gross negligence. As we have already noted, there was a great deal of evidence presented at trial from which the jury could have made a finding of gross negligence.