State v. Kvasnicka
2013 S.D. 25
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Kvasnicka was convicted by jury of first-degree manslaughter by means of a dangerous weapon, vehicular homicide, vehicular battery, and DUI; acquitted of two counts of first-degree manslaughter while engaged in the commission of a felony.
- Indictment charged seven counts including two felony DUIs; a vehicle could be a dangerous weapon under the statute.
- Around 2:00 a.m., she drove the wrong-way on I-229, causing a high-impact collision that injured one and killed another.
- Blood tests showed BAC between .225-.219 and later .204-.200; she admitted consuming alcohol and marijuana.
- Officer Crozier testified on kinetic energy calculations; Kvasnicka objected to relevancy and foundation; the court admitted the testimony over objections.
- Jury questions at trial focused on whether DUI is a felony; she was sentenced on multiple counts; appeal challenges prejudicial language and expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudicial effect of the phrase 'while engaged in the commission of a felony' | Kvasnicka argues the language implied prior DUI convictions. | Kvasnicka contends the language was prejudicial and misleading. | Moot; the jury acquitted the counts with that language so prejudice issue not reached. |
| Admissibility of Officer Crozier’s kinetic energy testimony | Crozier’s expertise and relevance were improperly admitted to prove the vehicle as a dangerous weapon. | The testimony was relevant to show force and used standard accident reconstruction methods. | The court abused its discretion admitting the testimony; reversal and remand for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 737 N.W.2d 397 (2007 S.D. 82) (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Fisher v. State, 805 N.W.2d 571 (2011 S.D. 74) (trustworthiness of expert testimony; qualifications required)
- Roach, 825 N.W.2d 258 (2012 S.D. 91) (two-step review of evidentiary rulings; prejudice analysis)
- Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 474 (2009 S.D. 20) (two-step prejudicial error review for evidentiary rulings)
- Seidschlaw, 304 N.W.2d 102 (1981 S.D.) (vehicle can be a dangerous weapon depending on use)