State v. Richard Knutson, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 July 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-1898-CR,93-1898-CR
• Citation: 196 Wis.2d 86,537 N.W.2d 420
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD KNUTSON, INC., Defendant-Appellant. d

Page 420

537 N.W.2d 420

196 Wis.2d 86

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD KNUTSON, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ^d

No. 93-1898-CR.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs April 18, 1995.

Opinion Released July 26, 1995.

Opinion Filed July 26, 1995.

On behalf of the defendant-appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of John H. Hinderaker and Ann Marie Hanrahan of Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, MN.

On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, Atty. Gen., and Daniel J. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen.

Before ANDERSON, P.J., and BROWN and NETTESHEIM, JJ.

ANDERSON, Presiding Judge.

Principles of elementary comparative justice, Wisconsin's tradition of holding corporations criminally liable and persuasive public policy considerations support our conclusion that corporations may be prosecuted for homicide by negligent use of a vehicle. We affirm the conviction of Richard Knutson, Inc. (RKI) holding that it is within the class of perpetrators covered by the statute and that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the jury's verdict.

FACTS

In the spring of 1991, RKI undertook the construction of a sanitary sewer line for the City of Oconomowoc. On May 20, 1991, while working in an area adjacent to some Wisconsin Electric Power Company power lines, a work crew attempted to place a section of corrugated metal pipe in a trench in order to remove groundwater. The backhoe operator misjudged the distance from the boom of the backhoe to the overhead power lines and did not realize he had moved the stick of the boom into contact with the wires. In attempting to attach a chain to the backhoe's bucket, a member of the crew was instantly electrocuted.

The State subsequently charged RKI with negligent vehicular homicide under § 940.10, STATS. RKI denied the charge, disputing both the applicability of the negligent vehicular homicide statute to corporations, as well as the substantive allegations themselves. Prior to trial, RKI's motion to dismiss the information was denied. The jury found RKI guilty as charged. The trial court entered judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. RKI appeals.

We initially certified this case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court pursuant to RULE 809.61, STATS. The question the supreme court accepted for consideration was: "Whether a corporation may be prosecuted under the terms of § 940.10, STATS., which provides that '[w]hoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class E felony.' "

In a per curiam opinion, the supreme court announced that it was equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the judgment of conviction. State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191 Wis.2d 395, 396, 528 N.W.2d 430, 431 (1995) (per curiam). The supreme court concluded that in the interest of justice it would vacate its decision to accept the appeal on certification and return the case to this court for our consideration. Id.

CONSTRUCTION OF HOMICIDE STATUTE

RKI raises the same challenges to § 940.10, STATS.,--homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle statute--as it did in the trial court. The trial court held that § 940.10 covered acts by corporations. Reasoning from a series of decisions, including Vulcan Last Co. v. State, 194 Wis. 636, 644, 217 N.W. 412, 415 (1928), the trial court quoted Vulcan Last when it concluded, " 'Prima facie,' the word 'person,' in a penal statute which is intended to inhibit an act, means 'person in law'; that is, an artificial, as well as a natural, person, and therefore includes corporations, if they are within the spirit and purpose of the statute." The trial court decided that corporate liability was within the spirit of § 940.10, stating, "The purpose of the statute is to protect employees or anyone from the negligent conduct of another which may cause death. It should not matter that the 'another' is a person or corporation as long as the conduct is criminal...."

On appeal, RKI insists that a corporation cannot be held accountable for homicide. RKI argues that "[t]he statute uses the word 'whoever' and the correlative phrase 'another human being.' In the context of this sentence, 'whoever' necessarily refers to a human being. By its own terms, the statute therefore limits culpability for homicide by operation of a vehicle to natural persons." RKI contends that § 940.10, STATS., is an ambiguous penal statute that must be interpreted in its favor under the rule of lenity.

The State contends that the statute is unambiguous and includes corporations within a broad class of perpetrators. Relying on Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Kenosha Educ. Ass'n, 70 Wis.2d 325, 332, 234 N.W.2d 311, 314 (1975), the State argues that when used in the homicide statutes, the word "whoever" refers to natural or corporate persons. The State reasons that either can be liable for taking the life of "another human being."

This issue requires us to construe § 940.10, STATS. Because construction of a statute is a question of law, we proceed with this undertaking independently of the trial court. See State v. Wilson, 170 Wis.2d 720, 722, 490 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Ct.App.1992). Our task is to interpret the meaning of the terms "whoever" and "another human being" within the context of the homicide statute. See State v. Hurd, 135 Wis.2d 266, 276, 400 N.W.2d 42, 46 (Ct.App.1986). The primary goal of our interpretation of statutory words is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent, and our first resort is to the language of the statute itself. State v. Rognrud, 156 Wis.2d 783, 787-88, 457 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Ct.App.1990). If the statutory language is of uncertain meaning, we will then refer to the canons of statutory construction and consider the scope, history, context, subject matter and object of the statute in order to discover legislative intent. ¹ See Wilson v. Waukesha County, 157 Wis.2d 790, 795, 460 N.W.2d 830, 832-33 (Ct.App.1990).

A statute is ambiguous when it is capable of being interpreted in two or more ways by reasonably well-informed persons. Id. at 795, 460 N.W.2d at 833. An ambiguity does not exist merely because the parties disagree on a statute's meaning. Holy Family Catholic Congregation v. Stubenrauch Assocs., Inc., 136 Wis.2d 515, 521, 402 N.W.2d 382, 385 (Ct.App.1987). We must examine the language of the statute to decide if the parties' different views are warranted. Id.

Here, the statute does not provide a definition of "whoever." ² See § 940.10, STATS. It is left to the reader to determine if "whoever" should be read expansively to include natural and artificial persons, or should be read narrowly and have its definition gleaned from its reference to the correlative phrase "another human being." See id. We conclude that because reasonably well-informed persons could differ as to who might be a perpetrator, the statute is ambiguous.

We will thus employ extrinsic aids to uncover the legislature's intent. RKI reminds us of the rule of lenity; under this rule we are required to construe all penal statutes strictly in favor of the defendant. See State v. Olson, 106 Wis.2d 572, 585, 317 N.W.2d 448, 454 (1982). However, it is also a canon of statutory construction that "[c]onstruction of ambiguous legislation is made in light of the evil sought to be remedied." State v. Timm, 163 Wis.2d 894, 899, 472 N.W.2d 593, 595 (Ct.App.1991).

Where a penalty is involved it has been said that while such statute must be construed with such strictness as carefully to safeguard the rights of the defendant and at the same time preserve the obvious intention of the legislature, the rule of strict construction is not violated by taking the common-sense view of the statute as a whole and giving effect to the object of the legislature, if a reasonable construction of the words permits it.

Zarnott v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 244 Wis. 596, 600, 13 N.W.2d 53, 54 (1944).

The rule of lenity does not require us to give § 940.10, STATS., the narrowest possible construction where to do so would be inconsistent with the legislature's intent. See Zarnott, 244 Wis. at 600, 13 N.W.2d at 54. The primary goal of statutory construction is to carry out the legislature's intent; the tools of statutory construction, including the rule of lenity, cannot be used in disregard of the purpose of the statute. See State v. Hopkins, 168 Wis.2d 802, 814, 484 N.W.2d 549, 554 (1992). In this process, sometimes a strict construction and sometimes a liberal construction of a penal statute are required to carry out the legislative purpose. ³ Id.

Professor James Willard Hurst provides guidance. First, he suggests that the very nature of today's society makes it impossible for the members of the legislature to forecast "the particular condition or set of facts to which someone now suggests applying the statute." JAMES W. HURST, DEALING WITH STATUTES 35 (1982). According to Hurst, the legislators may well have supplied "sufficient specifications to provide a discernible frame of reference within which the situation now presented quite clearly fits, even though it represents in some degree a new condition of affairs unknown to the lawmakers." Id. Second, he submits that "as a vital element in the community's life a statute is more than the text we find in the statute book." Id. at 41. Hurst argues that the text under judicial analysis gains its vitality from its past "--from the prior state of the law and the shortcomings of that state of law"--and from its future "--from what those charged with applying it do to give it force, not only to promote its objectives but to overcome contrivances to evade its mandates." Id.

Finally, Hurst instructs those interpreting statutes that:

the content of public policy may grow by accretion of statutory precedents in a fashion analogous to the growth of common law. Statutes dealing with a...