State v. Medicine Eagle

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court reviews Gabriel Darryn Medicine Eagle’s convictions for rape, sexual contact with a child, kidnapping, and habitual-offender status. The court considers the admission of subsequent-acts evidence under SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)) and whether testimony concerning DNA testing performed in part by nontestifying analysts violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The opinion is identified as 2013 S.D. 60 and was filed on August 7, 2013.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the 2003 incident involving S.M. under SDCL 19-12-5 and Rule 404(b) to show plan, common scheme, and modus operandi. Subsequent acts may be admissible to prove a common plan or scheme, and the plan may be established circumstantially through sufficient similarities between the charged and uncharged acts.
2. The admission of Barbara Leal's testimony concerning the 2008 and 2011 Y-STR testing did not violate Medicine Eagle's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, even though other analysts performed some testing steps and did not testify.
3. The filing of the amended Part II information effectively dismissed the original Part II information. After the State dismissed the amended information, no Part II information remained on file, so the circuit court lacked authority to proceed with the habitual-offender trial or impose the enhanced sentence. The denial of Medicine Eagle's motion to vacate was erroneous, requiring reversal and remand for resentencing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the 2003 incident involving S.M. under SDCL 19-12-5 and South Dakota Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show plan or common scheme.
2. Whether admitting Barbara Leal's testimony about the 2008 and 2011 Y-STR testing violated Medicine Eagle's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because other analysts who performed some testing steps did not testify.
3. Whether the State's filing and later dismissal of an amended Part II habitual-offender information effectively dismissed the original information, leaving no Part II information authorizing the habitual-offender proceedings and enhanced sentence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded