## Facts

- Road construction was underway on a divided highway; the right lane was closed while workers performed duties in that lane.
- The closed work lane was separated from the open lane by upright channelizing devices placed roughly a foot inside the work lane.
- The speed limit was 75 mph outside the project area and was reduced to 55 mph through the construction zone.
- Brian Larson drove through the occupied construction zone at approximately 62–68 mph.
- Larson crossed into the closed construction lane and struck two construction workers, killing them.
- Evidence supported that the construction zone and reduced speed limit were visible and that Larson was aware of the construction activity and reduced-speed conditions.
- Larson contended the site was improperly marked and that the lane incursion was only a split-second lapse, amounting at most to negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Larson sped through a visible, occupied construction zone and drifted into the closed lane was sufficient to prove “recklessness” for second-degree manslaughter rather than mere negligence or inadvertence.
2. How “recklessly” should be defined and applied under South Dakota’s second-degree manslaughter statute.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed two second-degree manslaughter convictions.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Larson acted “recklessly.”
- The court rejected the argument that the brief duration of crossing the line negated recklessness, viewing the offense as Larson’s overall conduct in the construction zone.
- A dissent would have found the evidence insufficient to show Larson actually perceived the relevant risk in time to constitute recklessness.

## Legal Principles

- “Recklessly” in the manslaughter context means a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of a substantial risk that conduct may cause a prohibited result.
- Recklessness requires more than ordinary negligence; the key distinction is the actor’s awareness of the risk and decision to proceed despite that risk.
- On sufficiency review, the court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Because the jury could infer that Larson knowingly drove above the reduced speed limit through a visible, occupied construction zone and thereby consciously disregarded a substantial, unjustifiable risk to workers, the evidence supported recklessness and the manslaughter convictions were affirmed.


State v. Larson, 582 N.W.2d 15 (S.D. 1998)