State of Minnesota v. Timothy Kenbert Engle

Summary

The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(3), for recklessly discharging a firearm within a municipality does not require proof that the firearm was intentionally discharged. It requires proof of a conscious or intentional act connected with the discharge that created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which the defendant was aware and consciously disregarded. The court remanded for reconsideration because the district court applied a lower, objective recklessness standard.

Holdings

1. The statute does not require proof that the defendant intentionally discharged the firearm. It requires proof of a conscious or intentional act, in connection with the discharge, that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which the defendant is aware and consciously disregards.
2. For purposes of the statute, a person acts recklessly by committing a conscious or intentional act that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person is aware of and disregards.
3. Remand was required because the district court applied the model-jury-instruction definition requiring only that Engle knew or should have known of the unreasonable risk, rather than determining whether he was subjectively aware of and disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(3), requires proof that the defendant intentionally discharged the firearm.
2. What definition of recklessness applies to a prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1a(a)(3).
3. Whether a conscious or intentional act connected with an unintentional firearm discharge can satisfy the statute's voluntary-act and mens rea requirements.

Disposition

remanded