State of South Dakota v. Brad Reay

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed Brad Reay’s conviction for the first-degree murder of his wife. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting challenged evidence despite gaps in the chain of custody, and it found no reversible error concerning testimony about a family tragedy, a proposed unconsciousness instruction, an alleged discovery violation, or admission of a Vivarin box.

Holdings

1. A complete or perfect chain of custody is not required; the State need only present sufficient evidence for the court to conclude with reasonable probability that the exhibit is the item involved and has not changed in important respects. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, and Reay showed no specific prejudice.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that the victim's mother had experienced a similar family tragedy, but the error was not prejudicial and did not require a new trial.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing Reay's proposed instruction concerning unconscious conduct because the instruction addressed a possible defense for his daughter, not a material issue in determining whether Reay killed the victim.
4. Even assuming the trial court abused its discretion in finding no discovery-order violation, Reay was not entitled to a mistrial or reversal because he failed to establish material prejudice.
5. The Vivarin warning label was hearsay and did not qualify for the market-reports exception because the admitted box was purchased by the State and was not shown to be the same package or label found in Reay's truck. Nevertheless, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. The asserted errors, even considered cumulatively, did not produce cumulative prejudice requiring reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting physical evidence despite the State's failure to present testimony from the crime-lab evidence custodian.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing testimony from the victim's mother concerning her prior family tragedy.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Reay's proposed instruction that a person who committed the charged act unconsciously is incapable of committing the crime.
4. Whether the State violated the discovery order by presenting expert testimony concerning exclusion of a child's DNA based on the known DNA profiles of the child's parents, and whether the alleged violation required a mistrial.
5. Whether the trial court erred by admitting a Vivarin warning label as an exception to the hearsay rule, and whether the error was harmless.
6. Whether the asserted errors cumulatively required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed