## Facts

- Marion Sherman Munnell drove south on an Itasca County highway and crossed the double center line, striking Kenneth Cloud, who was lying unconscious on the road.
- Munnell’s right front and rear tires ran over Cloud, causing his death.
- Chemical testing showed Munnell had an alcohol concentration of 0.11%; Cloud had an alcohol concentration of at least 0.24%.
- The State charged Munnell with criminal vehicular operation resulting in death under Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1 (1983), based on causing death by (a) gross negligence or (b) negligence while under the influence.
- Before trial, Munnell moved to dismiss on constitutional grounds and sought a jury instruction treating the victim’s comparative fault as a defense.
- The trial court denied the motions and certified four questions for interlocutory review.

## Issues

1. Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1 is facially void for vagueness because it uses a “negligence” standard.
2. Whether the statute is facially unconstitutional as overbroad and/or a denial of equal protection.
3. Whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied when the defendant is allegedly less at fault than the deceased victim.
4. Whether being less at fault than the deceased victim is a defense to prosecution under the statute.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings and answered all four certified questions in favor of the State.
- The statute was not void for vagueness; “negligence” has a settled legal meaning and provides ascertainable standards of guilt.
- The statute was not overbroad because it does not criminalize constitutionally protected conduct.
- The statute did not violate equal protection; imposing liability on drivers who negligently cause death while under the influence is rationally related to highway safety and deterrence.
- The statute was constitutional as applied even if the victim’s conduct contributed substantially to the death and the defendant was arguably less at fault.
- The victim’s comparative fault was not a legal defense, though it could bear on whether the State proved negligence and causation.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal statute using “negligence” is not unconstitutionally vague when the term has a well-established meaning that gives fair notice and limits arbitrary enforcement.
- Overbreadth invalidation generally applies to laws reaching constitutionally protected activity; a statute regulating negligent intoxicated driving causing death does not fit that category.
- Under rational-basis review, the legislature may classify intoxicated drivers for enhanced criminal liability to further public safety, without calibrating guilt to comparative fault between defendant and victim.
- Victim contributory or comparative negligence is not a defense in a criminal vehicular homicide-type prosecution, but evidence of the victim’s conduct may be relevant to the elements of negligence and proximate causation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1 against facial and as-applied constitutional challenges and held that a defendant’s relative fault compared to the victim does not provide a defense, although victim conduct may be considered when deciding whether the State proved negligence and causation beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Munnell, 344 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)