Court Opinion

ID: 9543550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:46:29.012299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:34.745027
License: Public Domain

SIMONETT, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion states that the evidence of defendant’s driving up to the point of impact does not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, gross negligence. I agree.
The opinion also states the evidence of defendant’s driving after the point of impact does sufficiently establish gross negligence which could be seen by the jury as a substantial factor causing the child’s death. I agree.
My concern, however, is that, due to misleading instructions from the court, the jury may have based its verdict on the assumptions defendant was grossly negligent before the point of impact or that death was caused by impact.
In final argument, the state argued defendant’s overall conduct, both before and after impact, was grossly negligent. Defense counsel argued that the initial impact killed the boy; that defendant’s conduct, if grossly negligent, became so only after impact and, therefore, any gross negligence did not cause the boy’s death. The court’s instructions made no distinction between conduct prior and subsequent to impact, stating only that defendant must have caused the death of Lonnie Carlson by operating a motor vehicle in a grossly negligent manner.
The jury went out at about 12:25 p.m. It returned at 2:15 p.m. with a written question: “Does gross negligence pertain to previous to accident, at point of impact and immediately afterward?” The court read again the definition of criminal negligence and of gross negligence, and then went on:
I’m not sure whether this answers the question or not. But we’re talking about, the question reads, “Does gross negligence pertain to previous to accident.” Do you mean pertain to the time previous, or at the point of impact, or immediately afterwards. It’s all pretty much one event. At the point of the accident, it’s one-tenth of a second at the very instant now. You’re talking about the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which caused the death by careless use of that automobile grossly negligent use.
[Emphasis added.] This instruction may have left the jury with, the impression it should not make a distinction between defendant’s conduct before and after impact, a distinction which defense counsel recommended and this court has adopted.
Believing it impermissible to distinguish between prior and subsequent conduct, the jury might have based its verdict on any one of several erroneous assumptions. The jury might have determined the child’s death was caused by impact and that defendant’s conduct was at that time grossly negligent, a conclusion the majority here would find incorrect. Or it might have determined death was caused by impact and that defendant’s grossly negligent conduct after impact could support a guilty verdict, a conclusion both improper and illogical.
Defense counsel failed to object to the court’s instruction to the jury, but the issue is critical enough and, in light of the juror’s question and the trial court’s response thereto, the likelihood of misunderstanding great enough that it seems to me a new trial is required. Cf. State v. Carlson, 268 N.W.2d 553 (Minn.1978).