#29002-a-JMK
2021 S.D. 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
…
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
HENRY FRANCIS LITTLE LONG, Defendant and Appellant.
…
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
…
THE HONORABLE JON SOGN
Judge
…
JASON R. RAVNSBORG
Attorney General
JOHN M. STROHMAN
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff and
appellee.
KRISTI JONES of
Dakota Law Firm, Prof. LLC
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant and
appellant.
…
ARGUED
APRIL 22, 2020
OPINION FILED 06/23/21
#29002
KERN, Justice
[¶1.] A jury convicted Henry Francis Little Long (Little Long) of second-
degree murder and first-degree manslaughter for the killing of LaKendrick
Thornton (Thornton). The circuit court sentenced Little Long to life in prison on the
second-degree murder conviction. Little Long appeals, challenging the circuit
court’s admission of certain statements for impeachment purposes, the State’s
compliance with the 180-day rule, and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2.] Just before 1:00 a.m. on September 18, 2018, the Sioux Falls Police
Department received a call reporting that a woman was pounding on the door of a
residence pleading for help. Law enforcement officers located the woman, Ayom
Mangor (Mangor), who told them she had just witnessed a shooting. Mangor told
the officers that earlier that evening she was with Thornton, when they were picked
up by Kelsey Roubideaux (Roubideaux), and a Native American man, (later
identified as Little Long) who was in the front passenger seat. Mangor told the
officers that she was with Thornton when the couple picked them up to drive
Thornton to a location where he could buy drugs. An argument ensued between the
man and Thornton, and Mangor reported that the man in the front passenger seat
pulled out a gun, turned to the back seat, and shot Thornton in the chest.
[¶3.] Panicked, Mangor pushed the rear passenger door open and leapt out
of the backseat of the moving car. She hit the ground, scraping her knees and
hands, and losing a shoe in the process. Despite her best efforts, she was unable to
pull Thornton out with her when she jumped. The shooting occurred near the
-1-
#29002
intersection of Nye and Mable in Sioux Falls. Investigators found Thornton’s body
at about 9:30 a.m. that morning in a ditch near Renner, South Dakota, with a single
gunshot wound to the chest. An autopsy later revealed that Thornton died from the
wound sometime between midnight and 2:00 a.m. on September 18, 2018.
[¶4.] Shortly after finding the body, officers identified Little Long as a
suspect and began interviewing people acquainted with him. On September 20,
Sioux Falls Police Department Detective Pat Mertes (Detective Mertes), conducted
a videotaped interview with Margaret Walking Eagle (Walking Eagle), Little Long’s
mother figure who stated that Little Long had been staying at her house. When
questioned about the events that occurred on the night of September 18, she became
very emotional. She stated that Little Long and Roubideaux came to her house.
Little Long had a gun with him and a pair of red tennis shoes. He asked Walking
Eagle to follow him into a back bedroom where he recounted the fight in the car and
said that he had “f***ing killed someone tonight.” Walking Eagle disclosed to law
enforcement that Little Long threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
[¶5.] Police arrested and interviewed Roubideaux on September 20. She
told officers that she borrowed a car from a friend in exchange for drugs. 1 She
stated that she picked up Little Long, her former boyfriend, at a casino in Sioux
Falls and then drove across town to pick up Thornton, who had agreed to assist
them in buying drugs. Thornton got into the back seat of the car with a female
friend. Detective Mertes confirmed the information gleaned from Roubideaux’s
interview by viewing security video footage from a Get-n-Go fuel station, across the
1. The vehicle was a 2001 gold Toyota Camry.
-2-
#29002
street from the spot where they picked up Thornton, which captured Thornton and
Mangor entering the backseat of a Toyota Camry before it drove away.
[¶6.] As they approached the designated address for the drug buy, near east
Tenth Street in Sioux Falls, Thornton became paranoid, and a verbal argument
broke out in the car. Roubideaux ordered Thornton to get out. After he refused,
Little Long brandished a gun and repeated Roubideaux’s request to Thornton to get
out of the car. After Roubideaux convinced Little Long to put the gun away,
Thornton told Little Long that he was “tired of people pulling guns on him and not
pulling the trigger.” Roubideaux said that Thornton “doubted” Little Long. At trial,
Roubideaux testified that Little Long then pulled the trigger, shooting Thornton in
the chest, who responded, “you shot me.” Roubideaux initially told the police that
Little Long dropped her off after the shooting and that she had no further
information. Roubideaux subsequently recanted this statement and admitted to
assisting Little Long in disposing of Thornton’s body and cleaning the car.
[¶7.] Little Long was arrested on September 21, 2018 and charged by
complaint with Thornton’s murder. His initial appearance occurred that same day.
On October 3, 2018, a Minnehaha County grand jury issued a three-count
indictment charging Little Long and Roubideaux with first- and second-degree
murder and first-degree manslaughter. 2 As the case progressed, a series of pretrial
motions and scheduling conflicts delayed the trial.
2. Roubideaux, as part of a plea bargain agreement, pled guilty to accessory to
murder in connection with Thornton’s death and to an aggravated assault
charge arising from an unrelated case.
-3-
#29002
[¶8.] Little Long’s seven-day jury trial began on April 8, 2019. The State
called both Roubideaux and Mangor as witnesses. As it related to the events that
transpired in the car, Roubideaux’s testimony was largely identical to her initial
interview with police. She testified that after Little Long shot Thornton, Mangor
started screaming and jumped out of the car. She asked Little Long if she should
take Thornton to the hospital. Little Long said they were not taking him to the
hospital and told her to keep driving. Roubideaux testified that they drove to a
remote location north of Sioux Falls and that she helped Little Long drag
Thornton’s body from the car and dump it in the ditch. Both she and Little Long
had their cell phones with them, and Little Long used the GPS function to
determine their location because they were unfamiliar with the area. At trial, she
testified that she did not know what happened to Thornton’s phone, but Detective
Mertes testified that she told him during the investigation that the phone had been
thrown out the window.
[¶9.] Roubideaux also testified that after dumping the body, she drove Little
Long to Walking Eagle’s house where they stayed for a short time. She then took
Little Long to his girlfriend’s house where they used bleach and wipes to remove the
blood from the interior of the car. She testified that she cleaned up the blood, and
Little Long disposed of the remaining items that were left in the car.
[¶10.] Mangor testified that she was with Thornton when Roubideaux, who
was driving a gold Camry, picked them up at a friend’s house near the intersection
of 4th and Cliff. She knew Roubideaux from an earlier meeting with her at the
Nites Inn when Mangor was looking for Thornton. Roubideaux had a male
-4-
#29002
passenger in the front seat, so she and Thornton slid into the back seat with
Mangor sitting directly behind the male passenger in the front. An argument broke
out in the car which Mangor testified was caused by Roubideaux’s inability to follow
the directions Thornton was giving her. The man in the front seat pulled out a gun
twice. The first time, Mangor testified that he pointed it at her head. The second
time he pulled out the gun, she heard Thornton say, “You’re not going to keep on
waving that gun around. You’re just not going to—if you’re going to shoot, just
shoot.” The man replied, “You think I’m not going to shoot?” and then shot
Thornton in the chest. Mangor testified that she flew out of the vehicle, leaving a
shoe behind on the street.
[¶11.] The State also called several witnesses to the stand to testify about the
location and condition of Thornton’s body in the ditch where it was discovered. Erin
McCaffrey (McCaffrey), a forensic specialist with the Sioux Falls Police Department,
testified that she photographed Thornton’s body, which was clothed in only a shirt,
underwear, and a sock, before crime scene specialists removed the body from the
scene. McCaffrey lifted Thornton’s shirt and observed a bullet wound to his chest.
She testified that she returned later to the scene that evening and applied BlueStar
to the area. The BlueStar revealed a trail of blood extending from the road to the
place where the body was found in the ditch. 3 McCaffrey also obtained Little Long’s
fingerprints after his arrest.
3. BlueStar is a chemical that reacts with small traces of blood that may not be
visible to the naked eye, producing a bright blue chemiluminescence that can
be photographed.
-5-
#29002
[¶12.] Detective Mertes testified that he was called to the scene and, based on
the information he had, he obtained an arrest warrant for Roubideaux and
disseminated photos of the Toyota Camry to patrol officers. The car was located at
the Lucky Lady Casino in Sioux Falls on September 19. After obtaining a search
warrant, law enforcement officers had the vehicle towed to the crime lab storage
facility where it was processed by the officers and evidence technicians.
[¶13.] Detective Derek Kuchenreuther (Detective Kuchenreuther) of the
Sioux Falls Police Department testified regarding the records he recovered from his
subpoenas to Verizon for data generated on September 18 between midnight and
2:00 a.m. from phones connecting to the cell-phone towers closest to the place where
Thornton’s body was found. From this data, he determined that, between 1:12 a.m.
and 1:23 a.m., Thornton’s and Roubideaux’s cell phones were hitting off the same
cell tower from approximately the same location near the ditch where Thornton’s
body was located. Detective Mertes testified that this tower was located 1.65 miles
from the spot where Thornton’s body was found. Additionally, Detective Mertes
testified that he was able to obtain data extracted from the Tracfone 4 Little Long
was carrying at the time of his arrest, which led to the discovery of Little Long’s
social media accounts. Using the data he received from Detective Kuchenreuther
and the cell-phone providers, he plotted the path taken by Roubideaux’s cell phone
from the place where the shooting occurred to the place where Thornton’s body was
4. Tracfone is a cell phone provider similar to Verizon, but Tracfone contracts
with a variety of providers in order to use their networks and cell towers.
-6-
#29002
dumped. All three phones were connecting to the cell towers along this route at
approximately the same times.
[¶14.] The State also called witnesses to testify regarding evidence recovered
from the car. Deputy Mark Toft (Deputy Toft) testified that he found fingerprints,
which he later determined to be Little Long’s, on a Rock Star energy drink located
in the passenger side door compartment of the front seat. He also described blood
located on the back side of the front passenger seat and in other spots in the car.
Deputy Toft described his observation of miniscule droplets of blood covering the
driver’s seat area which, by its presentation, indicated that it had been
expectorated. Forensic experts conducted a DNA analysis, which determined that
some of the blood found in or on the vehicle was Thornton’s blood, including all the
blood found under the rear passenger seat door molding. Dr. Kenneth Snell, the
coroner who performed the autopsy, testified that Thornton died of a single gunshot
wound to the chest sometime after midnight.
[¶15.] Walking Eagle testified for the State in its case-in-chief and was
recalled to the stand several times. She claimed that she had no memory of the
night of the incident or her interview with Detective Mertes, despite having
watched the recording of her interview outside the presence of the jury to refresh
her memory. The circuit court then allowed the State to recall Detective Mertes to
impeach Walking Eagle’s credibility by introducing the prior statements she made
to him about Little Long.
[¶16.] At the end of the State’s case, Little Long moved for judgment of
acquittal. The circuit court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to the
-7-
#29002
defense’s case-in-chief. Little Long called Ginny Rothwell (Rothwell) to testify in
support of his theory that Roubideaux or one of her friends killed Thornton.
Rothwell testified that on September 18, she and Frederick Eagle Tail (Eagle Tail)
picked up Roubideaux and took her to get some food. They stopped at the Kum and
Go convenience store. Roubideaux stole some items from the store, and the clerk
took pictures of Rothwell’s car as they drove off. When questioned by law
enforcement about the incident, Rothwell told the officers that she had been
contacted by Eagle Tail through a Facebook message, and he asked her if she
wanted to buy a pistol from him. Rothwell asked Eagle Tail if the gun had been
fired. When she learned that it had, she declined to buy it. Little Long argued in
closing that Eagle Tail may have tried to sell the pistol for Roubideaux who could
have killed Thornton.
[¶17.] As part of his defense, Little Long also focused on the absence of
physical evidence against him pointing to the fact that his DNA was not in the car
or on the body, and the murder weapon was never found. Focusing on Mangor’s and
Roubideaux’s methamphetamine use that night and Roubideaux’s status as an
accomplice, he also attacked their credibility. Further, Little Long argued that the
State failed to show that he had any motive to kill Thornton.
[¶18.] Little Long rested his case and renewed his motion for judgment of
acquittal, which the court denied. The jury returned guilty verdicts for second-
degree murder and first-degree manslaughter but acquitted Little Long of first-
degree murder. For the crime of second-degree murder, the circuit court sentenced
Little Long to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
-8-
#29002
[¶19.] Little Long appeals, raising three issues for our review:
I. Whether the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings regarding
the testimony of Walking Eagle and her subsequent
impeachment were erroneous.
II. Whether the circuit court violated Little Long’s right to be
brought to trial within 180 days under SDCL 23A-44-5.1.
III. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Little Long’s
motions for judgment of acquittal.
Analysis and Decision
I. Whether the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings
regarding the testimony of Walking Eagle and her
subsequent impeachment were erroneous.
[¶20.] Little Long asserts that the circuit court erred by allowing the State to
ask Walking Eagle a series of questions about her statements to Detective Mertes
incriminating Little Long, which the State knew she would deny making. In Little
Long’s view, the hearsay statements were offered for the sole purpose of then calling
Detective Mertes to elicit the statements under the guise of impeachment. Little
Long submits that the court’s rulings admitting this evidence violated three rules of
evidence to his prejudice. First, Little Long asserts the court erred by permitting
Walking Eagle to review her prior interview, outside the presence of the jury, to
determine admissibility under SDCL 19-19-803(5) when she stated it would not
help refresh her recollection. Second, he contends that the impeachment evidence
was improperly admitted violating SDCL 19-19-613(b) and his Sixth Amendment
right to confront Walking Eagle. And finally, Little Long asserts that the admission
of the testimony was unfairly prejudicial under SDCL 19-19-403.
-9-
#29002
[¶21.] In order to evaluate the context in which the statements were
permitted, it is necessary to set forth the background leading to their admission.
Immediately prior to trial, Walking Eagle was arrested in Pierre on a material
witness warrant and transported to Sioux Falls. When the State called Walking
Eagle to the stand at trial, she claimed she had no memory of her conversation with
Little Long or her subsequent interview with the police. The following colloquy
occurred:
The State: Okay. I want to specifically turn your attention
back to September 18th, the early morning of
September 18th. Do you remember that day?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: You don’t remember that day?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: Do you remember having Kelsey Roubideaux and
Henry [Little] Long coming to your home that day?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: Do you recall talking to Detective Mertes about
having Kelsey Roubideaux and Henry [Little] Long
coming to your house that day?
Walking Eagle: No, I don’t.
The State: You don’t recall being interviewed by law
enforcement?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: You look confused. What do you remember about
that time frame?
Walking Eagle: I’m trying to remember the day. I can’t even
remember back.
...
The State: If you were to watch that recorded interview, would
that refresh your memory as to what took place on
September 20th in your conversation with
Detective Mertes?
Walking Eagle: No.
[¶22.] After this discussion, the State requested a recess. Once outside the
presence of the jury, the State argued the recording was admissible for
impeachment purposes under SDCL 19-19-613(b) as extrinsic evidence of a prior
-10-
#29002
inconsistent statement. The defense objected, asserting that Walking Eagle was
unavailable because of her lack of memory regarding these particular statements
and therefore not available for cross-examination, which would violate Little Long’s
Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. See generally
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36,
124 S. Ct. 1354,
158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).
[¶23.] The circuit court ruled that it would permit the State to attempt to
refresh Walking Eagle’s memory by showing her the 21-minute video of her
interview with the police because it wanted “the defense to have an opportunity to
cross-examine on it.” If the tape refreshed her memory, the circuit court held that it
would not admit the video. However, if she still could not recall the interview, the
court indicated that the video may be admissible under SDCL 19-19-803(5) as
evidence of Walking Eagle’s past recorded recollection. The court stated that if
admitted under this rule, the video would be shown to the jury, but not received as
an exhibit.
[¶24.] After watching the recording, Walking Eagle was recalled before the
jury and the following questions were asked:
The State: Now Ms. Walking Eagle, you just had an
opportunity to review your interview from
September 20, 2018, with Detective Mertes. Did
that refresh your memory as to what you had
talked to Detective Mertes about?
Walking Eagle: No, it hasn’t.
The State: That did not refresh your memory at all?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: Watching yourself be interviewed on September
20th did not refresh your memory as to what you
said to him?
Walking Eagle: No.
-11-
#29002
The State: Okay. And the information would have been on
September 20th in regards to an incident that took
place on September 18th; is that correct?
Walking Eagle: I don’t know.
The State: Did you watch that interview?
Walking Eagle: Yes, I did.
The State: Did you see yourself in that interview?
Walking Eagle: I seen somebody.
The State: Okay. Sounded like you?
Walking Eagle: Sounded like me.
The State: Looked like you?
Walking Eagle: Pretty high, yeah.
...
The State: And you don’t recall what you’re—you don’t recall
today what you told him at that time?
Walking Eagle: No, I don’t.
The State: And that was an audio and a visual recording of
you being spoken to by the detective; correct?
Walking Eagle: I guess it is.
The State: And that, you would agree with me, would reflect
your knowledge as of September 20th of what you
knew of the incident?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: That would not have accurately reflected your
knowledge?
Walking Eagle: No, I don’t remember any of it.
[¶25.] The State again excused her from the stand and called another
witness. Thereafter, the court met with counsel outside the presence of the jury to
discuss the admissibility of the video under various exceptions to the hearsay rule.
The court, while acknowledging Crawford’s nearly categorical holding that “when
the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause
places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements,” State v.
Toohey, 2012 S.D. 51, ¶ 16,
816 N.W.2d 120, 128 (quoting Crawford,
541 U.S. at 59
n.9,
124 S. Ct. at 1369 n.9), nonetheless declared Walking Eagle unavailable after
expressing concerns as to whether the United States Supreme Court had
definitively ruled on this issue where a witness has no memory of the events in
-12-
#29002
question. 5 The court reasoned that because courts were divided on how to treat a
witness who claimed no memory of an event and this Court had not yet spoken on
this precise question, the best approach was to deem her unavailable. Based on
Walking Eagle’s testimony that she could not remember her conversation with
Detective Mertes or its contents, the court held that the video was hearsay, not
within any of the stated exceptions and therefore inadmissible. Whereupon, the
State recalled Walking Eagle and asked her a series of direct questions including:
The State: Do you know Kelsey Roubideaux.
Walking Eagle: No, I don’t.
...
The State: You don’t know her at all?
Walking Eagle: No, I don’t.
The State: Have you ever known Kelsey Roubideaux to be at
your home?
Walking Eagle: My home? No.
...
The State: On September 18 of 2018 in the early morning
hours, did you have a conversation with Henry
[Little] Long?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: Did Henry [Little] Long come to your house?
Walking Eagle: No.
...
The State: Did Henry [Little] Long tell you that morning that
he had shot a man?
Walking Eagle: No.
[¶26.] Based on the State’s exchange with Walking Eagle, the State
requested a recess. Once outside the presence of the jury, the State informed the
court that it intended to impeach Walking Eagle’s credibility by using her prior
inconsistent statements to law enforcement made during her police interview. In
particular, the State argued that Walking Eagle’s prior statements to police,
5. The State did not file a notice of review to challenge this ruling on appeal.
-13-
#29002
including her statement that Little Long confessed to her, were inconsistent with
her testimony that she did not speak with Little Long on the night of the killing.
Arguing that extrinsic evidence was permitted to impeach a witness’s credibility in
this context, the State again requested admission of the video of Walking Eagle’s
interview.
[¶27.] The court agreed that the statements were inconsistent and, after
performing the requisite balancing test under Rule 403, held that the probative
value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice. The court, however, denied the request to introduce the entire recorded
interview. 6 Instead, the court indicated it would admit only those portions of the
recording that were impeaching and that it would give limiting instructions at the
time the evidence was elicited and as part of the final written instructions of law.
[¶28.] The defense again objected to admission of the recording as
unnecessary and prejudicial. In response, the State withdrew its request to
introduce the video and offered to introduce the inconsistent statements through
Detective Mertes, which the court approved. The State then requested and received
permission to recall Walking Eagle. The court brought the jury back into the
courtroom, and the State asked Walking Eagle a series of questions including the
following:
The State: When he [Little Long] came to your house on the
early morning of September 18th, did he have a
pair of red shoes with him?
Walking Eagle: No.
6. The circuit court also ordered the State to redact the video to remove certain
statements that it found unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
-14-
#29002
The State: Did he have a wallet?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: Did he have a gun?
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: At one point[,] did he take out the gun and put it on
the table?
Walking Eagle: No.
...
The State: Did you—Did he tell you: “I f***ing killed someone
tonight?”
Walking Eagle: No.
The State: Was Kelsey Roubideaux in your house that early
morning?
Walking Eagle: No.
...
The State: Did Henry tell you: “I’m coming for you, Mom, if
you tell anybody; I love you, but I’m coming for
you?”
Walking Eagle: No.
After her testimony, the State excused Walking Eagle from the stand and called
Detective Mertes, who testified in part as follows:
The State: Now, did you ask Ms. Walking Eagle if she knew a
Kelsey Roubideaux?
Mertes: I did.
...
The State: Did she indicate she knew Kelsey Roubideaux?
Mertes: Yes, she did.
...
The State: Did she indicate whether Kelsey Roubideaux and
Henry [Little] Long had come to her home that
early morning?
Mertes: She did.
...
The State: Specifically in regards to Henry [Little] Long, did
[Walking Eagle] tell you about any conversation
she had with Henry [Little] Long that morning?
Mertes: She did.
The State: What did she tell you?
Mertes: She stated that Mr. [Little] Long had asked her
back into her bedroom and then began to make
statements about what had taken place earlier.
The State: And what did she tell you he had told her?
Mertes: He said that he’d shot a man.
-15-
#29002
The State: Did she tell you what led up to him shooting the
man or what the defendant told her had led up to
the shooting?
Mertes: That there was an argument taking place in the
vehicle, and that basically he and Mr. Thornton—
...
The State: Did Ms. Walking Eagle indicate to you that [Little
Long] had told her “I f***ing killed someone
tonight”?
...
Mertes: Yes. 7
Detective Mertes, also testified that Walking Eagle said that Little Long brought a
pair of red shoes, a wallet, and a handgun into the house with him.
[¶29.] We review a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Janklow, 2005 S.D. 25, ¶ 32,
693 N.W.2d 685, 697 (citations
omitted). However, we review whether Little Long’s Sixth Amendment right to
confrontation was violated de novo. State v. Spaniol,
2017 S.D. 20, ¶ 23,
895
N.W.2d 329, 338 (citations omitted).
Recorded recollection refreshed: SDCL 19-19-803(5)
[¶30.] Hearsay is “a statement that: (1) [t]he declarant does not make while
testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) [a] party offers in evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” SDCL 19-19-801(c). There are
many exceptions to the rule against hearsay, regardless of the availability of the
declarant, including a recorded recollection of a statement made by a witness while
7. At the close of the State’s case, the court told the parties that before it
permitted Detective Mertes to testify, it again conducted the Rule 403
balancing test and found the probative value of the impeachment questions
were not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
-16-
#29002
the matter was fresh in the mind of the witness which accurately reflects that
knowledge. SDCL 19-19-803(5). 8
[¶31.] Little Long first argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by
allowing Walking Eagle to view the video of her interview because she testified it
would not refresh her memory. We see no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision.
SDCL 19-19-612(a) “provide[s] for the method of refreshing witness recollection
called present recollection refreshed.” Carpenter v. City of Belle Fourche, 2000 S.D.
55, ¶ 20,
609 N.W.2d 751, 760 (quoting John W. Larson, South Dakota Evidence §
612.1 at 438 (1991)). “This involves the use of anything that will actually trigger
the witness’ memory so that the witness may thereafter actually testify from
memory. Anything that will cause the memory to be regained, . . . is permitted.”
Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation mark omitted). Here, the State apologized
to the court, stating that it was unaware that Walking Eagle’s testimony would
deviate from what she previously said in her interview. Allowing the State to show
her the video outside the presence of the jury was a reasonable step to take to
8. SDCL 19-19-803(5) provides in relevant part:
The statements described in this section are not excluded by the
rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is
available as a witness:
...
(5) Recorded recollection. A record that:
(A) Is on a matter the witness once knew about but now
cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
(B) Was made or adopted by the witness when the matter
was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
(C) Accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
-17-
#29002
refresh the memory of the witness and, as the court noted, to ensure that she was
subject to cross-examination on the contents of the interview.
[¶32.] Little Long next argues that bringing Walking Eagle before the jury a
second time was improper because she did not claim knowledge of her interview
even though she had just watched it. While it may have been a better practice to
determine whether her recollection was refreshed outside the presence of the jury,
the court ultimately denied the State’s request to introduce the evidence under
SDCL 19-19-803(5). Though the court believed the exception applied, it found that
the State had not established sufficient foundation for the introduction of the
recorded interview as substantive evidence—a ruling the State has not challenged
on appeal. Under the circumstances, Little Long has failed to explain how he was
prejudiced by this second colloquy, wherein Walking Eagle claimed she had no
knowledge of the interview. 9
Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements: SDCL 19-19-613
[¶33.] The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including
the party that called the witness. SDCL 19-19-607. Even when the prior
9. The State submits that Little Long’s threat to Walking Eagle that he would
be “coming for her,” if she told anyone that he killed someone that night, was
likely the reason for her feigned “amnesia and unavailability.” In the State’s
view, such evidence was admissible per SDCL 19-19-804(b)(6) as a statement
offered against a party that wrongfully and intentionally caused the
declarant’s unavailability. At trial, the State argued unsuccessfully that the
threat served as a basis for the application of SDCL 19-19-804(b)(3)’s hearsay
exception for statements against interests, but it did not identify SDCL 19-
19-804(b)(6) as a basis. The circuit court did not, accordingly, have an
opportunity to consider the issue, and we decline to address the argument for
the first time on appeal.
-18-
#29002
inconsistent statement is ordinarily inadmissible, it may be admitted for the limited
purpose of impeaching the witness under SDCL 19-19-613(b). 10
[¶34.] In order “[t]o properly impeach, the prior statement must be
inconsistent with the witness’s current testimony and it must not be on a collateral
issue.” State v. Wills, 2018 S.D. 21, ¶ 13,
908 N.W.2d 757, 762 (citation omitted).
The witness may be asked if “he or she made the prior statement without disclosing
its contents to the witness.”
Id. (citing SDCL 19-19-613(a)). But upon request, the
statement must be shown to opposing counsel.
Id. (citing SDCL 19-19-613(a)). “If
the witness admits making the statement, no further foundation is necessary.”
Id.
Should the witness deny making the statement, however, extrinsic evidence may be
introduced to prove that the witness made an inconsistent statement.
Id. (citing
SDCL 19-19-613(b)).
[¶35.] It is uncontested that the statements were clearly inconsistent,
previously disclosed, and given under an appropriate limiting instruction prior to
Detective Mertes’s testimony. 11 See State v. Gage,
302 N.W.2d 793, 798 (S.D. 1981)
10. SDCL 19-19-613(b) provides in relevant part:
Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is
admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain
or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an
opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so
requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing
party’s statement under subdivision 19-19-801(d)(2).
11. Before permitting the impeachment testimony, the circuit court instructed
the jury as follows:
Sometimes evidence is received for a very limited purpose, and that’s
what’s going to happen with the answer to this question and some of
(continued . . .)
-19-
#29002
(identifying four requirements for admitting prior inconsistent statements).
However, Little Long argues that because the prior inconsistent statements could
not be offered for the truth of the matters asserted, they lacked relevance given
Walking Eagle’s initial testimony denying any recollection of the events about
which she was being questioned. See id. at 789 (requiring that, to be relevant, the
inconsistency must be such that the State’s “case will be adversely affected if the
inconsistent testimony is allowed to stand” (quoting United States v. Rogers, 549
F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976)). In response, the State maintains the prior
inconsistent statements were highly probative because, if left unanswered, Walking
Eagle’s denials regarding whether she knew Roubideaux and whether Roubideaux
and Little Long came to her house on the morning in question were directly
contradictory to the testimony of Roubideaux, the State’s key eye witness.
[¶36.] We agree that some of Walking Eagle’s prior inconsistent statements
were relevant to impeach her credibility as to these particular matters. However,
the relevancy of Walking Eagle’s prior statements pertaining to Little Long’s
confession and his other actions on the morning in question cannot be gauged by
________________________
(. . . continued)
the questions to follow. It’s received for a limited purpose. And let me
try to explain that a little bit more. So the credibility of Margaret
Walking Eagle may be attacked by introducing evidence that on some
former occasion Ms. Walking Eagle made a statement on a matter of
fact or acted in a manner inconsistent with her testimony in this case
on a material—excuse me, on a matter material to the issues.
Evidence of this kind may be considered by you in connection with all
the other facts and circumstances in evidence in deciding the weight to
be given to the testimony of Margaret Walking Eagle. But you must
not consider any such prior statement as establishing the truth of any
fact contained in that statement.
-20-
#29002
considering the truth of the matters asserted. In this vein, Little Long further
argues that because no evidence contrary to Walking Eagle’s denials as to these
particular events had been admitted in the State’s case, the probative value of
Walking Eagle’s prior inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes was
minimal because there was no substantive testimony to impeach. Little Long
asserts that the State used Walking Eagle as a “strawman” to “blatantly back-
door[]” the admission of evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, violating
his confrontation rights in the process.
[¶37.] In Rufener II, we made clear that SDCL 19-19-607 prohibits the State
from calling a witness “only to serve as a ‘strawman’ for the introduction of
inadmissible hearsay . . . .” State v. Rufener (Rufener II), 401 N.W.2d 740, 744 (S.D.
1987) (citation omitted). And although “impeachment of one’s own witness” by prior
inconsistent statement “may be permitted, this does not go so far as to permit the
use of the rule as a subterfuge to get to the jury evidence otherwise inadmissible.”
Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, we counseled that when deciding whether to admit
such evidence, courts “must exercise extreme caution when the impeaching evidence
goes beyond simply proving that the witness was incredible and begins to persuade
by illegitimate means.”
Id.
[¶38.] Indeed, the difference between impeachment evidence and substantive
evidence can be subtle and a jury can miss the difference.
Id. (citation omitted).
Impeachment evidence is evidence introduced into the record for the limited
purpose of attacking a witness’s credibility. As such, it is not offered for the truth of
the matter asserted and is not hearsay. Wills,
2018 S.D. 21, ¶ 12, 908 N.W.2d at
-21-
#29002
762 (holding impeachment, by definition, is not hearsay). In contrast, evidence is
substantive when the purpose for its admissibility is not to attack a witness’s
credibility, but rather to admit the prohibited hearsay for its truth in order to prove
the defendant’s guilt. Rufener II, 401 N.W.2d at 744 (citation omitted).
[¶39.] The State’s reason, at least initially, for calling Walking Eagle to the
stand did not, as Little Long argues, center around admitting the impermissible
hearsay statements in the police interview. It was only after Walking Eagle, to the
State’s apparent surprise, refused to answer questions regarding Little Long’s
admissions and his other actions that night that the State sought to impeach her by
introducing her prior statements to Detective Mertes. However, after Walking
Eagle twice denied any recollection of the events surrounding her contact with
Roubideaux and Little Long and also denied any recollection of her interview with
the detective, the State then recalled her a third and fourth time to ask her very
specific questions that essentially parroted the statements Walking Eagle had
related in her interview with Detective Mertes. By this time, the State can no
longer claim it was surprised by her denials, and it is apparent that the State’s
additional specific questions were posed as a predicate to then offer extrinsic
evidence of Walking Eagle’s contrary statements to Detective Mertes. Because of
the potential that the jury might consider these statements for more than just
impeachment, we must address the Rule 403 concerns arising from the admission of
such evidence.
-22-
#29002
Balancing test: SDCL 19-19-403
[¶40.] This Court’s analysis in Rufener II, which focused on the State’s
motives, is an elusive test requiring us to analyze a prosecutor’s state of mind.
Other courts, including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, look not to the
prosecutor’s motives, but instead to the admissibility of the impeachment evidence
under Rule 403 when analyzing whether the impeachment evidence is a “mere
subterfuge.” See, e.g., United States v. Logan, 121 F.3d 1172, 1175 (8th Cir. 1997);
United States v. Ince,
21 F.3d 576, 580 (4th Cir. 1994). Under SDCL 19-19-403, a
court may exclude even relevant evidence, “if its probative value is substantially
outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice. Balancing the evidence under Rule
403 is the “clearly preferable approach” because it does not require that we
speculate regarding a prosecutor’s motivations. Jeffrey Bellin, 30B Fed. Prac. &
Proc. Evid. § 6729 (2021 ed.). We hold this is a more reliable form of analysis.
[¶41.] Applying Rule 403’s balancing test, rather than trying to discern
motive, is both practical and logical because both “inquiries will often get to the
same answer.” Id. See also United States v. Buffalo,
358 F.3d 519, 527 (8th Cir.
2004) (“Eighth Circuit case law clearly provides that the probative value of a Rule
613(b) prior inconsistent statement must be weighed against the prejudicial effect of
its admission . . .” (citing Logan,
121 F.3d at 1175)). This is because when the State
“introduces testimony that provides no real harm to [the] case,” its evidentiary
weight with respect to the substantive issues of the case is minor. Bellin, supra ¶
40, at § 6729. As a consequence, “the probative value of impeachment will be
miniscule.” Id. However, when the prior inconsistent statement is highly
-23-
#29002
prejudicial, 12 “[t]he jury would be tempted to rely on the out-of-court statement not
for the proper, miniscule purpose of impeaching the witness’ testimony, but rather
for the improper purpose . . . .” Id. Therefore, balancing the admissibility of the
proffered evidence under Rule 403 leads to the more reliable result.
[¶42.] Little Long argues that the circuit court erred in its Rule 403
determination because the probative value of impeaching the testimony of Walking
Eagle is negligible when compared to the inflammatory nature of his admissions to
Walking Eagle. We agree.
[¶43.] In Ince, the Fourth Circuit applied the Rule 403 balancing test to
nearly the same scenario that we review today. 21 F.3d at 580. In that case, the
witness testified that she could not remember a previous statement she made to law
enforcement in which she stated that the defendant admitted to committing the
crime. The court concluded that Rule 403 required exclusion because the risk of
unfair prejudice “is multiplied when the statement offered as impeachment
testimony contains the defendant’s alleged admission of guilt.”
Id. at 581. Along
these lines, it held that a court “should rarely, if ever, permit the Government to
‘impeach’ its own witness by presenting what would otherwise be inadmissible
hearsay if that hearsay contains an alleged confession to the crime for which the
defendant is being tried.” Id.
12. Under “Rule 403, ‘prejudice’ does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case
that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it
refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence
to persuade by illegitimate means.” Rufener II, 401 N.W.2d at 744 n.3
(citation omitted).
-24-
#29002
[¶44.] In this case, Detective Mertes’s testimony in which he repeated
Walking Eagle’s statement that Little Long said “I f***ing killed someone tonight”
was highly prejudicial. While Walking Eagle’s statements to police had significant
probative value with respect to proving Little Long’s guilt, they were not, and could
not, be admitted under this exception for this purpose, and therefore, the
impeachment value of the statements was limited. The State could have used a
number of other inconsistent statements to impeach Walking Eagle, but instead
chose to “impeach” her testimony, that she never interacted with Little Long on the
date in question, by eliciting the most prejudicial statement she had previously
claimed Little Long made to her. Because of the potential danger of the jury
considering this testimony for the truth of the matters asserted, the Rule 403
concerns substantially outweighed the probative value of this statement for
impeachment purposes. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court abused its
discretion by admitting Walking Eagle’s prior statements made to Detective Mertes
detailing Little Long’s alleged confession and other actions that evening. While our
ruling does not hinge on the prosecutor’s motives, we caution prosecutors to refrain
from attempting to admit so-called impeachment evidence, which is nothing more
than a subterfuge for hearsay. And although the court twice performed the
balancing test, it failed to correctly weigh the prejudicial effect of Little Long’s
statements made to Walking Eagle.
Confrontation Clause
[¶45.] With regard to Little Long’s claim that his confrontation rights were
violated, the Sixth Amendment provides that the accused enjoys the right “to be
-25-
#29002
confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “A
violation of the Confrontation Clause ‘occurs when the witness making the
testimonial statements is both unavailable and has not previously been subject to
cross-examination.’” State v. Rodriguez, 2020 S.D. 68, ¶ 46,
952 N.W.2d 244, 257
(quoting State v. Richmond,
2019 S.D. 62, ¶ 30,
935 N.W.2d 792, 801); See also
Crawford,
541 U.S. at 59,
124 S. Ct. at 1369. Testimonial statements are loosely
defined as “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing
or proving some fact.” State v. Reinhardt,
2016 S.D. 11, ¶ 7,
875 N.W.2d 25, 27
(quoting Crawford,
541 U.S. at 51,
124 S. Ct. at 1364). Testimonial hearsay
includes, at a minimum, “police interrogations and ‘prior testimony at a preliminary
hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial.’” Richmond,
2019 S.D. 62, ¶ 27,
935 N.W.2d at 800 (quoting Crawford,
541 U.S. at 68,
124 S. Ct. at 1374).
[¶46.] Here, it is evident that Walking Eagle’s statements to the police, two
days after the killing, were designed to be used for prosecutorial purposes, and the
statements were not previously subject to cross-examination. However, the court
admitted the statements, not for the truth of the matters asserted, but solely for
impeachment. Because statements offered for impeachment are not, by definition,
hearsay, their admission does not implicate the Confrontation Clause concerns
addressed by Crawford. See Wills,
2018 S.D. 21, ¶ 12,
908 N.W.2d at 762.
Nevertheless, because of the Rule 403 prejudice concerns we have identified in this
case, we address the merits of Little Long’s Confrontation Clause claim in the event
the jury may have improperly considered the statements for the truth of the
matters asserted notwithstanding the court’s admonishment.
-26-
#29002
[¶47.] Importantly, the circuit court, when ruling that Walking Eagle was
unavailable, did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Rodriguez, 2020 S.D.
68, ¶¶ 47-52,
952 N.W.2d at 257-59. 13 In Rodriguez, we held that a witness may be
unavailable under an evidentiary hearsay rule, but nevertheless available for
confrontation. After a witness in the Rodriguez trial could not remember making
prior statements to investigating officers, the circuit court declared her unavailable
under the provisions of SDCL 19-19-804(a)(3). However, upon review, we held that
this determination did not mean the witness was unavailable for purpose of the
Confrontation Clause which “guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-
examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to
whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Rodriguez,
2020 S.D. 68, ¶ 50,
952
N.W.2d at 258 (quoting United States v. Owens,
484 U.S. 554, 559,
108 S. Ct. 838,
842,
98 L. Ed. 2d 951 (1988)). By refusing the opportunity to cross-examine, the
defendant in Rodriguez failed to “establish that he was denied ‘the traditional
protections of the oath, cross-examination, and opportunity for the [fact-finder] to
observe the witness’[s] demeanor’ secured by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. ¶ 51,
952
N.W.2d at 259 (quoting Owens,
484 U.S. at 560,
108 S. Ct. at 843) (alteration in
original).
[¶48.] Likewise, Little Long chose not to cross-examine Walking Eagle about
her initial alleged inability to remember her interview with Detective Mertes, as
13. The circuit court recognized the potential that unavailability for the
exceptions to the hearsay rule may not preclude availability for purposes of
the right of confrontation, but it accurately determined there was, at the
time, no definitive holding of this Court in that regard.
-27-
#29002
well as her later more definitive testimony in which she denied knowing
Roubideaux and denied having a conversation with Little Long on the date of the
alleged murder. And as we noted in Rodriguez, while the decision to forego cross-
examination may have been strategic, based on our review of the record, we
conclude that Walking Eagle was sufficiently available to satisfy the requirements
of the Confrontation Clause. As such, Little Long has not shown a violation of his
constitutional rights, and the fact that Walking Eagle’s “prior statements were
testimonial matters not.” Id. ¶ 52, 952 N.W.2d at 259 (citing Toohey,
2012 S.D. 51,
¶ 18 n.3,
816 N.W.2d at 129 n.3).
Prejudicial error
[¶49.] When evidence is improperly admitted at trial, reversal may not
always be necessary. To establish reversible error with regards to an evidentiary
ruling, “a defendant must prove not only that the trial court abused its discretion in
admitting the evidence, but also that the admission resulted in prejudice.” State v.
Lassiter,
2005 S.D. 8, ¶ 13,
692 N.W.2d 171, 175 (citation omitted). “Error is
prejudicial when, ‘in all probability . . . [it] produced some effect upon the final
result and affected rights of the party assigning it.’” State v. Packard,
2019 S.D. 61,
¶ 27,
935 N.W.2d 804, 812 (citation omitted) (alteration in original).
[¶50.] While the circuit court erred by permitting the introduction of Little
Long’s statements to Walking Eagle, a review of the record shows that there is no
reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the case. While the
admission of Little Long’s statement that he “f***ing killed a man,” was highly
prejudicial, the statement was not the lynchpin of the State’s case by any measure.
-28-
#29002
The State presented a strong case against Little Long, which included both direct
and circumstantial evidence that he shot Thornton. This evidence included the
testimony of two eye witnesses to the crime, Roubideaux and Mangor, each of whom
described watching Little Long shoot Thornton in the car.
[¶51.] While Mangor could not identify Little Long at trial, her testimony of
what occurred in the car and the details of the killing she described at trial were
consistent with Roubideaux’s testimony. For instance, both Roubideaux and
Mangor stated that they knew each other from a prior meeting at the Nites Inn,
that Mangor and Thornton were picked up at 4th and Cliff, and that Mangor and
Thornton sat in the back seat of the car. Both agreed that Thornton was paranoid
that night and that an argument started during the drive. According to each
witness’s account, Little Long pulled his gun out twice threatening Thornton. Both
described Little Long shooting Thornton in the chest after the second time he drew
his weapon. Roubideaux testified Mangor started screaming and jumped out of the
moving car. Mangor also recounted her reaction to the shooting, which included
describing her decision to jump out of the car and her efforts to pull Thornton out
with her. She testified that her shoe slipped off and that she left it in the
intersection where the shooting occurred. At trial, Sioux Falls Police Officer Nick
Billing testified that he found Mangor’s shoe in the middle of the road in the spot
she described.
[¶52.] The physical evidence presented to the jury was also substantial.
When law enforcement executed a search warrant on the car, they found red marks
consistent with blood on the back seat, ceiling, floor, and passenger door. DNA
-29-
#29002
analysis revealed that Thornton’s blood was found under the molding of the
passenger door. Deputy Toft testified that the car had a strong odor of bleach or
cleaning agents and there were wipe marks present near the red stains. When the
back seats were removed, he noticed that the floor was still wet with cleaning
solution as though the car had just been cleaned. This corroborated Roubideaux’s
testimony that she assisted Little Long with cleaning the car at his girlfriend’s
house after dumping the body.
[¶53.] As part of the investigation, Detective Kuchenreuther testified that he
obtained the cell-phone tower data for September 18 from 12:00–2:00 a.m. from the
three towers closest to the location of Thornton’s body. Officers identified
Roubideaux’s, Little Long’s, and Thornton’s phone numbers and determined that
they were all together at the location where Thornton’s body was found 1.65 miles
from the closest cell tower. Detective Mertes testified that the data revealed that
all three phones were stationary for approximately five minutes at this location.
[¶54.] The coroner’s testimony further bolsters Roubideaux’s and Mangor’s
version of events. While on the stand, Dr. Snell explained that the ridging along
the right side of the gunshot wound in Thornton’s chest suggested that the bullet
traveled from right to left, front to back at a slight up to down angle. This was
consistent with both witnesses’ testimonies that Little Long was seated in the front
passenger seat and had turned around to shoot Thornton, who was sitting in the
backseat on the driver’s side of the car. And although law enforcement did not
recover the murder weapon, they did discover three of Little Long’s fingerprints on
-30-
#29002
a can of Rock Star energy drink in the passenger seat door compartment where
Little Long was reported to be sitting.
[¶55.] In sum, the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the
evidence under Rule 403. However, we conclude the evidence was cumulative to
and independent of the overwhelming evidence that Little Long shot Thornton in
front of two eye witnesses. We, therefore, conclude that while the circuit court erred
in admitting the statements, such error does not require reversal because from our
review of the record, it did not rise to the level of prejudicial error.
II. Whether the circuit court violated Little Long’s
right to be brought to trial within 180 days under
SDCL 23A-44-5.1.
[¶56.] Little Long does not challenge the circuit court’s findings of fact, which
were incorporated into its memorandum decision, regarding the 180-day calculation
in this case. Nor does he contest that certain delays were properly excludable.
Rather, he focuses his argument upon the claim that the circuit court arbitrarily
tolled the 89 days between the January 2, 2019 and the April 1, 2019 trial dates
without good cause.
[¶57.] We review whether the 180-day period has expired and the existence of
good cause for delay under the de novo standard. State v. Andrews, 2009 S.D. 41, ¶
6 n.1,
767 N.W.2d 181, 183 n.1 (citations omitted). The 180-day rule “creates a right
to disposition of a criminal case within 180 days unless good cause may be shown
for delay.” State v. Sorensen,
1999 S.D. 84, ¶ 12,
597 N.W.2d 682, 684 (citation
omitted). It “is a procedural rule of court and not a constitutional requirement.”
Id.
(citation omitted).
-31-
#29002
[¶58.] The 180-day period commences when a defendant makes an initial
appearance on a charging document before a judicial officer. Id. ¶ 14, 597 N.W.2d
at 684. Per SDCL 23A-44-5.1, “[c]ertain days are properly excluded from this
calculation, including ‘delay which is occasioned by the defendant’s conduct, such as
delay caused by pretrial motions . . . and defendant’s competency examination . . . .’”
State v. Two Hearts,
2019 S.D. 17, ¶ 10,
925 N.W.2d 503, 509 (citation omitted).
“Additionally, the court may find good cause for delay for other exceptional
circumstances, not specifically enumerated in [SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(g)].” Id. ¶ 11,
925 N.W.2d at 509.
[¶59.] The 180-day clock began to run in this case on September 21, 2018,
when Little Long initially appeared before the circuit court on charges that he killed
Thornton. Little Long’s trial commenced 201 days later on April 8, 2019. But even
though more than 180 days had passed between his initial appearance and trial,
certain periods of delay may be properly excludable from the calculation. SDCL
23A-44-5.1(4). See State v. Webb,
539 N.W.2d 92, 95 (S.D. 1995).
[¶60.] Some procedural history is helpful to analyze Little Long’s claim. In
its October 11, 2018 scheduling order, the court imposed a November 21, 2018
motions deadline with a jury trial to begin the week of December 31, 2018. This
date was later moved to January 2, 2019, to accommodate the New Year’s holiday.
On October 24, 2018, Little Long’s attorney filed a motion for psychiatric
examination (competency evaluation) to determine whether Little Long was
competent to stand trial. The court signed an order granting the motion that same
day.
-32-
#29002
[¶61.] On November 16, 2018, Little Long emailed the court administrator’s
office, with a copy sent to the State’s Attorney’s office, requesting that a hearing be
scheduled to address his “preliminary motions.” With the involvement and
acquiescence of the parties, court administration set the motions hearing for
January 29, 2019, a new motion deadline for February 8, 2019, and a jury trial to
begin on April 1, 2019. Little Long’s counsel was instructed by court administration
to file a formal motion for delay, but counsel failed to do so.
[¶62.] Little Long’s counsel then moved to withdraw on January 10, 2019 for
a conflict of interest, and the court appointed new counsel. At the January 29, 2019
motions hearing, the parties agreed to move the April 1 trial date to April 8 to
accommodate several witnesses. Because the trial date was now more than 180
days from the date of Little Long’s initial appearance, the State raised the issue of
the 180-day rule. The court set an evidentiary hearing for February 5, 2019 to
determine whether any periods of delay were properly excludable. The court was
also informed at the January 29 hearing that the competency evaluation had not
been completed because Little Long believed he did not need one. After some
discussion with his counsel at the hearing, Little Long agreed to participate in the
competency evaluation before the April 8, 2019 trial date.
[¶63.] Following the February 5, 2019 hearing, the court issued a written
decision excluding two periods of delay from the 180-day calculation—the period
caused by Little Long’s request for a motions hearing date which moved the trial
date to April 1, 2019 and the delay caused by the filing of a motion for a competency
evaluation. Not only did the court find that both delays were excludable for specific
-33-
#29002
reasons identified under the statute, it also found, in the alternative, that both
constituted good cause for delay pursuant to the more general provision in SDCL
23A-44-5.1(4)(g).
[¶64.] The changes in scheduling, according to the circuit court, were
functionally equivalent to Little Long requesting a continuance of the trial date
because neither party objected to the new deadlines. SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(b)
provides for tolling during “the period of delay resulting from a continuance granted
at the request or with the consent of the defendant or his counsel provided it is
approved by the court and a written order filed.” And although the court
acknowledged that no formal motion was filed or written order issued, the court
faulted Little Long’s counsel for failing to file the motion as directed. It is well-
established that, “where a defendant assents to a period of delay and later attempts
to take advantage of it, courts” loathe “find[ing] a violation of an accused’s speedy
trial rights.” State v. Cottrill, 2003 S.D. 38, ¶ 11,
660 N.W.2d 624, 630. Because the
delay occurred at Little Long’s counsel’s request, the court found that Little Long
consented to the delay between January 2, 2019 and April 1, 2019. Regardless of
whether the court’s ruling falls within the parameters of SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(b), it
did not err in concluding that the actions of Little Long, via his counsel, constituted
good cause for excluding this period of delay.
[¶65.] Further, the trial was also delayed as a result of defense counsel’s
October 24, 2018 motion for a competency evaluation. When the circuit court ruled
on the defense’s 180-day motion on February 5, 2019, it noted that Little Long’s
evaluation was still pending. Little Long argues that this period of time cannot be
-34-
#29002
used to toll the rule because he told his attorney that he did not wish to be
evaluated and insisted that he was competent to stand trial. Counsel filed the
motion for the evaluation to protect Little Long’s interests because “an incompetent
defendant cannot be legally tried.” See State v. Ceplecha, 2020 S.D. 11, ¶ 36,
940
N.W.2d 682, 693.
[¶66.] The court found that it was “[Little] Long’s prior refusal to cooperate
with the evaluation[,]” and not the State’s actions, that created the delay.
Therefore, even if the request for a pre-trial motions hearing had not delayed the
first trial date, the court concluded that the trial could not have taken place on
January 2, 2019 due to the unresolved competency issue. 14 Competency, the court
noted, is one of the reasons specifically enumerated in SDCL 23A-44-5.1 which is
properly excludable under the 180-day rule. See SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(a). This
period of delay is in no way associated with the State and is properly excludable.
[¶67.] In summation, when excluding the periods of delay identified by the
court using either the October 24, 2018 or January 2, 2019 start date through April
1, 2019, it is clear that Little Long’s trial occurred well within the 180-day rule.
The circuit court did not err by so concluding.
III. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Little
Long’s motions for judgment of acquittal.
[¶68.] We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal
de novo to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
State v. Brim, 2010 S.D. 74, ¶ 6,
789 N.W.2d 80, 83 (citation omitted). This
14. The record does not indicate the date on which the competency evaluation
was completed but it was still pending as of the February 5 hearing.
-35-
#29002
standard requires that we ask “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Lawrence v. Weber,
2011 S.D. 19, ¶ 8,
797 N.W.2d 783, 785 (citation omitted). When reviewing the
evidence, we accept the “most favorable inferences fairly drawn therefrom, which
will support the verdict.” State v. Harruff,
2020 S.D. 4, ¶ 15,
939 N.W.2d 20, 25
(citation omitted). “Moreover, ‘the jury is . . . the exclusive judge of the credibility of
the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.’” State v. Johnson,
2009 S.D. 67, ¶ 10,
771 N.W.2d 360, 365 (citation omitted). Accordingly, this Court will not resolve
conflicting evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or reevaluate the weight of
the evidence.
Id.
[¶69.] A defendant is guilty of second-degree murder if he “perpetrate[s]
. . . any act imminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without
regard for human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death
of any particular person, including an unborn child.” SDCL 22-16-7. Additionally,
the State must prove that the defendant’s conduct established that he was acting
with a depraved mind. State v. Primeaux,
328 N.W.2d 256, 258 (S.D. 1982) (citation
omitted). “This mens rea requirement involves less culpability than the element of
premeditation required for first-degree murder.” Harruff,
2020 S.D. 4, ¶ 39,
939
N.W.2d at 30 (citation omitted).
[¶70.] Because he was acquitted of first-degree murder, Little Long contends
that the “default is not Murder in the Second Degree, it is Manslaughter in the
First Degree” with its lesser mens rea requirement. Little Long emphasizes that
-36-
#29002
the State’s theory of the case was that Little Long acted with a premeditated design
to kill Thornton. Because the jury acquitted Little Long of first-degree murder, he
concludes that the evidence was therefore insufficient to prove that he acted with a
“depraved heart.” Little Long argues that he was not waiving or discharging the
gun randomly, so his conduct was “either intentional, premeditated First-Degree
Murder, or it is First-Degree Manslaughter with a deadly weapon.” In support of
this contention, he relies upon authority from other courts involving scenarios that
reflect depravity of heart, such as firing a gun into a crowd. See, e.g., State v.
Brooks, 962 So. 2d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
[¶71.] We previously rejected similar arguments in State v. Laible,
1999 S.D.
58,
594 N.W.2d 328 and more recently, in State v. Harruff,
2020 S.D. 4,
939 N.W.2d
20. In Laible, we explained that “[i]f a person is able to act with ‘a lack of regard for
the life of another,’ then that person can be convicted of second[-]degree murder.”
1999 S.D. 58, ¶ 13,
594 N.W.2d at 332 (first alteration in original) (citation omitted).
Therefore, unless there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the second-
degree murder conviction, the conviction shall stand even if the jury rejects the
State’s theory that the defendant acted with the premeditation necessary for a first-
degree murder conviction.
[¶72.] In State v. Mulligan, we addressed the question of inconsistent
verdicts where the defendant was acquitted of first-degree murder but convicted of
second-degree murder. 15
2007 S.D. 67, ¶ 11,
736 N.W.2d 808, 814. We held that “a
criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction
15. We do not hold or suggest that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent here.
-37-
#29002
because it was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict of acquittal on another count.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Powell,
469 U.S. 57, 58,
105 S. Ct. 471, 473,
83 L. Ed.
2d 461, 464 (1984)). Juries are not “required to explain their” verdicts, and
appellate courts, rather than speculating about potential juror error, “should review
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction that was rendered.”
Id. ¶¶
11–12,
736 N.W.2d at 814-15 (citing Powell,
469 U.S. at 67,
105 S. Ct. at 478).
[¶73.] With respect to his claim regarding insufficiency of the evidence, Little
Long argues that the jury could not conclude that he had a depraved heart based on
the facts in this record. However, contrary to Little Long’s position, the State
presented ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict convicting Little Long of
second-degree murder.
[¶74.] As we previously noted, two eye witnesses saw Little Long shoot
Thornton, an unarmed man, at close range in the chest. Mangor testified that right
before he died, Thornton told Little Long, “You’re not going to keep on waving that
gun around.” She also testified that Little Long pointed the gun at her head before
threatening Thornton and subsequently pulling the trigger and shooting him. This
type of conduct evinces depravity of mind, which requires the accused to act
“without regard for human life[.]” SDCL 22-16-7. Based upon our review of the
evidence presented at trial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is
sufficient evidence for a jury to find the essential elements of second-degree murder
beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court did not err when it denied Little
Long’s motions for judgment of acquittal.
-38-
#29002
Conclusion
[¶75.] The circuit court erred when it admitted certain statements for
impeachment purposes, but such error, based on our review of the evidence in the
record, does not rise to the level of prejudicial error requiring reversal. The circuit
court did not err when it concluded the State complied with the 180-day rule.
Finally, sufficient evidence exists within this record to support Little Long’s
convictions.
[¶76.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and SALTER and DEVANEY, Justices, and
GILBERTSON, Retired Chief Justice, concur.
[¶77.] MYREN, Justice, not having been a member of the Court at the time
this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate.
-39-
