Zimmer, Duncan & Cole

Defendant Questions Life Sentence for Car Crash

A criminal defendant asked the South Dakota Supreme Court to re-examine the life sentence he received for a fatal car accident. The opinion in State v. Jason Larsen-Smith (2011 S.D. 93) examines the rule against cruel and unusual punishment.

   *   *   *

Last night, I found my ten-year-olds in the living room, captivated by a new discovery: the television show COPS. They eagerly explained the show’s premise to me and were quite surprised to learn that this reality crime series (and its “Bad Boys” theme song) had been on the air since I was in grade school. This particular episode involved a familiar story line:  a routine traffic stop, an ensuing high speed chase, and a dramatic collision. 
It reminded me of what happened in Lennox, SD last Saturday morning, when the drug store burglar, turned bank robber, turned car thief was finally apprehended after a twenty-mile chase.
The moral of these stories is that fleeing always makes things worse.  Nobody would agree more than the defendant in this week’s case, Jason Larsen-Smith.
One week before Christmas in 2009, a state trooper suspected he was driving drunk and attempted to pull him over near the Empire Mall.  Mr. Larsen-Smith accelerated and fled, at speeds of 95 miles per hour through Sioux Falls. Eight minutes later, Mr. Larsen-Smith ran a red light on 12^th Street and collided directly into a Ford Ranger. The driver of the pickup was pinned inside and killed instantly.  The speed upon impact was estimated at 65 miles per hour. Mr. Larsen-Smith willingly pled guilty to first degree manslaughter and driving under the influence.  Despite his contrition, the trial judge gave him the maximum sentence:  life in prison. Mr. Larsen-Smith appealed, arguing that this sentence was unconstitutional.

*   *   *

The Eighth Amendment to our federal constitution outlaws criminal punishments that are “cruel and unusual.”  (It also forbids courts from imposing excessive fines or bail.) Among the list of cruel no-no’s:  being beheaded, disemboweled, or burned at the stake.  (Firing squads are acceptable, as is electrocution.)
Only within the last three decades did courts begin to consider lengthy prison terms as “cruel and unusual”.  In the landmark case Solem v. Helm, our U.S. Supreme Court determined that this clause “prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed.” That case had its roots in South Dakota.  Jerry Helm was convicted in 1979 for writing a $100 check on a non-existent account.  This was his seventh felony in fourteen years.  All were non-violent, and alcohol was involved in each case. Indeed, Mr. Helm did not even remember writing the check:  "I was drinking, and I ended up here in Rapid City with more money than I had when I started. I knew I'd done something, I didn't know exactly what.” The maximum sentence for that crime would have been five years.  However, under South Dakota’s repeat-offender statute, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. In that 1983 case, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction because it was “significantly disproportionate to his crime.” 
Although the result seems correct, the Court’s decision opened up a can of worms.  Now, every prison term is potentially unconstitutional.  In addition, some jurists have argued that the 8^th Amendment was never intended to be used in this way. Our own state Supreme Court is reluctant to second-guess the state Legislature when it comes to sentencing.  If the law permits a particular range of sentences, then a sentence within that range is almost always upheld. Our Court is also deferential to the trial judge who imposed the sentence, stating that “it is not for us to engage in appellate resentencing or to micromanage the administration of criminal justice.” Accordingly, the Court uses a very strict framework for overturning a sentence.  It asks whether the punishment is far too great for this particular crime, while taking into account the defendant’s character, age, habits, family, occupation, prior criminal record, and prospects for rehabilitation.
Here, the Court noted that Mr. Larsen-Smith was only 31 years old and had a young son.  However, he had already been convicted of eight DUIs.  He had been paroled six times, and he violated each time. He had received alcohol counseling multiple times, but always relapsed.  The longest he had ever stayed out of prison was ten months. In addition, the Court noted that his high-speed chase resulted in the death of a “completely innocent man” whose family was financially and emotionally devastated by his death. The Court determined that incarceration was the only safe way to ensure that Mr. Larsen-Smith’s eighth DUI would be his last.  Considering all the circumstances, the Court ruled that his lifetime sentence was not disproportionate to the crime.