This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Jason M. Brossoit,
Mower County District Court
File No. K7-02-1374
Mike Hatch, Attorney General,
Patrick Flanagan, Mower County Attorney, Jeremy Lee Clinefelter, Assistant County Attorney, 201 First Street NE, Austin, MN 55912 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Jason Brossoit challenges his convictions of criminal vehicular operation and reckless driving, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm.
that the district court should have granted his pretrial motion to dismiss for
lack of probable cause. Appellant
entered into a Lothenbach stipulation,
waiving his right to a jury trial and submitting the two remaining counts for
trial by the court on stipulated facts.
We need not
decide whether a Lothenbach stipulation
may properly be used to preserve a pretrial challenge to probable cause.
A person who
causes the death of another, great bodily harm to another, or substantial
bodily harm to another as a result of operating a motor vehicle in a grossly
negligent manner is guilty of criminal vehicular homicide or criminal vehicular
operation. Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subds. 1(1), 2(1), 2a(1) (2002). Gross negligence is defined as “the want of
even scant care.” State v. Iten,
401 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Minn. App. 1987) (quoting State v. Bolsinger, 221
A person who
drives a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of
persons or property is guilty of reckless
driving. Minn. Stat. § 169.13
subd. 1 (2002). Additionally, the driver
of the vehicle must have known, or should have known that his manner
of driving created “an unreasonable risk of harm.” State
v. Bolsinger, 221
appellant (1) was traveling at a rate of speed that made it impossible to yield
in time to avoid hitting the victims’ vehicle; (2) completely disregarded a
yield sign; (3) was familiar with the intersection, the yield sign, and the
limited visibility in approaching the intersection; and (4) had less than the
minimum legal tread depth on his rear tires.
There was ample evidence for the district court to conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of both criminal vehicular operation
and reckless driving. See generally State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d
754, 756 (
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI § 10.