## Facts

- Richard Knutson, Inc. (RKI) was a Wisconsin construction corporation installing a sanitary sewer line for the City of Oconomowoc in spring 1991.
- On May 20, 1991, an RKI crew operated a backhoe near overhead electrical power lines at the worksite.
- The backhoe’s boom contacted energized overhead lines.
- A crewmember who was attaching a chain to the backhoe bucket was electrocuted and died.
- The State charged RKI with homicide by negligent operation (or use) of a vehicle under Wis. Stat. § 940.10, based on the backhoe’s operation.
- RKI moved to dismiss, arguing § 940.10 applies only to human defendants and does not authorize prosecution of a corporation.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding corporate criminal liability could further the statute’s aim of preventing negligent deaths and that corporations can be prosecuted where consistent with the statute’s object.
- A jury convicted RKI.
- The appeal was certified to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which accepted certification but later reported an equally divided court; it vacated the certification order and returned the case to the court of appeals.
- On remand, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decided the appeal and addressed both the statutory-coverage question and RKI’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Does Wis. Stat. § 940.10, which applies to “whoever” causes the death of another human being by negligent operation/use of a vehicle, permit prosecution of a corporation?
2. Was the evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that RKI, acting through its employees, caused the death by negligent operation/use of the backhoe?

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that a corporation can be prosecuted under Wis. Stat. § 940.10; “whoever” can include artificial persons when that reading fits the statute’s object and Wisconsin law on corporate criminal responsibility.
- The court rejected the argument that the phrase “another human being” limits the class of possible defendants; it describes the victim, not the actor.
- The court held the rule of lenity did not require excluding corporations where statutory construction and the statute’s object point the other way.
- The court held the trial evidence was sufficient for the jury to find negligent operation/use of the backhoe by RKI’s agents within the scope of their work and a causal connection to the worker’s death.

## Legal Principles

- When a penal statute is ambiguous as to whether it reaches corporations, Wisconsin courts consider the statute’s language in context and may consult the statute’s object and related interpretive aids.
- Wisconsin recognizes corporate criminal liability; a corporation may be treated as a “person” capable of committing crimes through its agents when the statute’s object and the nature of the offense allow that result.
- Broad actor terms like “whoever” may include both natural and artificial persons where that reading better serves the statute’s object and is consistent with Wisconsin precedent.
- The rule of lenity does not require the narrowest possible reading if that reading conflicts with the statute’s object as determined through standard tools of statutory construction.
- Corporations act only through agents; criminal liability may attach when an agent, acting within the scope of employment, commits the conduct elements of the offense that are attributable to the corporation.
- On appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is viewed most favorably to the verdict, and the conviction stands if a reasonable jury could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals affirmed RKI’s conviction for homicide by negligent operation/use of a vehicle, holding that Wis. Stat. § 940.10’s use of “whoever” can include a corporate defendant and that the record supported the jury’s finding that RKI, acting through its employees’ negligent operation of the backhoe, caused the worker’s death.


State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 420 (1995)