The case against Todd Gieck grew from an unexplained car in a ditch into a homicide prosecution supported by witnesses, video and physical evidence.
WHITEHALL, Wis. — When a deputy arrived on U.S. Highway 53 on the evening of May 15, 2024, the scene appeared to present a familiar problem: a car had crossed the roadway and ended up in a ditch. There were no witnesses at the scene who could explain why. More than two years later, that same incident ended in a Wisconsin courtroom with Todd Gieck sentenced to 40 years in prison for killing the driver, Kyle Dahl.
The transformation from crash investigation to homicide case depended on investigators revisiting what the roadway alone could not explain. Dahl, 36, had been found badly injured inside his sedan near County Road TT in the Town of Gale. The car had traveled across the centerline and into the southbound ditch before continuing toward a field-road and culvert area. He was flown to a hospital, but medical examination revealed that his head injury was not simply the result of the vehicle leaving the roadway. A gunshot wound had caused his death, and an autopsy led authorities to classify the case as a homicide.
That finding changed the investigative question. Deputies no longer needed only to determine why Dahl lost control of his car; they needed to identify who had been close enough to fire at him before it left the highway. The sheriff’s office publicly described the investigation as active and said it believed the killing was an isolated event. Investigators from multiple agencies assisted, including state and neighboring law-enforcement organizations. A person of interest was developed early and was already in custody on unrelated allegations while authorities prepared reports for prosecutors.
The roadway began to yield a timeline through people who had seen the vehicles before the apparent crash. One citizen reported seeing Dahl’s car followed closely by a red vehicle not far from where it left the highway. Investigators then obtained surveillance recordings from a business and a nearby home. The videos showed a red sedan following Dahl’s vehicle, providing investigators with a lead that did not depend on anyone having witnessed the fatal shot from the roadside. A resident familiar with Gieck helped identify the red car, according to the criminal complaint summarized in local reporting.
A search connected to Gieck added another layer. Authorities reported finding firearms and ammunition. Investigators also interviewed an associate who said Gieck had left two firearms at his home and had discussed an encounter in which another person’s rear window was damaged after that person angered him. A cartridge casing was later discovered with the assistance of a police dog near an area relevant to the investigation. Publicly available reporting cautioned that the shared caliber of a gun and casing was not by itself the same as a confirmed ballistic match, but the physical evidence gave investigators material to compare with witness statements and the vehicle evidence.
The break that most directly described the shooting came from someone who said he had been a passenger in Gieck’s car that night. The passenger told investigators that Gieck became agitated when Dahl passed at a slow speed. Gieck later caught up with Dahl’s vehicle. The witness said he heard the sound of a firearm being readied and Gieck say something like “Watch this.” He then heard the gunshot and breaking glass before seeing Dahl’s car leave the road. The account supplied a sequence that investigators had been unable to get from the original crash scene itself.
The witness also told authorities that Gieck drove away after Dahl’s car left the roadway, according to the complaint. That account could be checked against the surveillance video and other information already gathered. Investigators were not working from a single confession or a single piece of forensic evidence; the case developed through a combination of recorded vehicle movements, statements by people connected to Gieck, firearms recovered during the inquiry and the medical finding that had first turned the crash into a homicide investigation.
Prosecutors filed charges in June 2024, accusing Gieck of first-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon, discharging a firearm from a vehicle toward another vehicle and possessing a firearm as a felon, with repeat-offender allegations attached to the counts. A judge set a $1.5 million cash bond. Gieck pleaded not guilty and maintained that the discharge had been accidental. The early case also required a judicial change after Trempealeau County Judge Rian Radtke recused himself because a member of Dahl’s family worked for the county in close connection with the court system. Judge Thomas Clark was assigned afterward.
For nearly two years, the evidence that had accumulated after the roadside discovery remained allegations that prosecutors would ultimately have to prove to a jury. That happened in April 2026. During the trial, the state presented its case that Gieck’s conduct toward Dahl was not a harmless mishap but criminal recklessness that caused a death. The defense continued to dispute the prosecution’s interpretation of the shooting. Gieck did not plead guilty, and the burden remained with the state. On April 29, jurors found him guilty on all three counts.
The first-degree reckless-homicide conviction was significant because it did not convert the prosecution’s account into a finding of intentional murder. Wisconsin’s reckless-homicide law addresses a different form of criminal responsibility. The jury’s verdict established that the state had proved the charged reckless homicide beyond a reasonable doubt, along with the separate firearm offenses. That distinction remained important at sentencing, where Gieck continued to insist that he had not intended to fire the fatal shot even though the jury had already determined his conduct was criminally reckless.
Sentencing brought the investigation back to the consequences first visible at the roadside. Gieck apologized and said he had been frightened and had acted rashly. Clark rejected the attempt to characterize the shooting as an accident that substantially lessened responsibility. He imposed 40 years of confinement on the homicide case, with 20 years of extended supervision to follow. Local reporting said the shorter sentences on the additional firearm counts would run concurrently. The punishment meant the same case that started with a deputy trying to understand an unexplained car in a ditch now had a final circuit-court judgment assigning criminal responsibility.
Dahl’s family addressed the court before the sentence was imposed. His widow described the impact on their children, including the task of telling their young son that his father was not coming home. His mother spoke about losing the routine contact she had shared with him. Their statements supplied information no accident reconstruction or surveillance recording could capture: what the death meant after investigators had finished establishing how it occurred. Dahl’s obituary described a farmer, husband and father who had deep ties to Ettrick and often helped other farmers in the area.
The progression of the case also illustrates why authorities initially left important questions unanswered in public. The sheriff’s office announced Dahl’s identity while the investigation was still active and did not immediately disclose a complete theory of the killing. Investigators continued collecting reports before the district attorney made a charging decision. Details later contained in the complaint — the red sedan, the passenger account, the firearms and the statement attributed to an associate — emerged as prosecutors moved the case into court. Each stage changed what authorities could state with confidence.
What ultimately solved the mystery was not the damaged car alone but the evidence investigators assembled after realizing they were dealing with a homicide. Medical findings, surveillance recordings, witness interviews and other evidence turned an apparent crash into a criminal prosecution that survived trial. With Gieck convicted and sentenced, the central investigative question that confronted deputies in May 2024 — why Dahl’s car suddenly left the highway — has now been answered in court.
Author note: Last updated September 22, 2026.