The law recognizes varying degrees of mens rea, or the state of mind associated with a crime. In order of decreasing culpability, a criminal act may be committed willfully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. That Minnesota statute you quote above sounds to me more like the definition, not of negligence but of recklessness: conscious disregard of risk rather than mere failure to exercise due caution against it. If, in fact, Minnesota law draws the line for culpability between recklessness and negligence—that is, if it criminalizes reckless but not mere negligent homicide—then you may indeed have an argument here.

Not having sat on the jury and heard the facts of the case as presented by both sides, neither you nor I are really in a position to judge the merits. But from what I know of the publicly reported facts, it looks to me like Potter committed negligent homicide. The point at issue is whether that is in fact a crime in Minnesota, or whether it has to rise to the higher standard of recklessness. Either way, mere negligence is certainly enough to render her civilly liable for wrongful death, even if not culpable of criminal homicide.

The fact remains that a jury of Potter’s peers judged that her actions met the standard for culpability. Presumably before deliberating they were instructed in the law by the judge; if the judge misstated the culpability standard, Potter might have grounds for appeal. But as a mere bystander looking on from afar, I can’t feel that justice wasn’t done.