State v. Quist

2018 S.D. 30 (2018) · Supreme Court of South Dakota · March 28, 2018 · No. #28270

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed Bradley Davis Quist’s conviction for second-degree murder. The court held that the State’s failure to notify Quist before the victim’s body was released and cremated did not require dismissal or violate due process, particularly because Quist failed to show deprivation of exculpatory evidence. The court also upheld the sufficiency of the evidence and admission of autopsy photographs.

Court
Supreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the Court
Zinter, Justice; Gilbertson, Chief Justice; Severson, Justice; Kern, Justice; Jensen, Justice
Jurisdiction
South Dakota
Decision date
March 28, 2018
Docket number
#28270
Procedural posture
Quist appealed from a final judgment of conviction for second-degree murder, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the admission of autopsy photographs.
Standard of review
The denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo. The sufficiency inquiry asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Admission of photographs is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published South Dakota Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Bradley Davis Quist v. State of South Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduredue processevidenceappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Quist's motion to dismiss the indictment because the State failed to notify him before the coroner released the victim's body to the family for cremation.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Quist's conviction for second-degree murder despite his claim of self-defense.
  3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting eight autopsy photographs as cumulative and unduly prejudicial.

Holdings

  1. The failure to provide notice under SDCL 23A-37-15 did not require dismissal of the indictment and did not violate due process because a decedent's body is not property owned by the family or defendant for purposes of the statute, and Quist failed to show that cremation deprived him of exculpatory evidence.
  2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Quist committed second-degree murder, including acts imminently dangerous to others that evinced a depraved mind without regard for human life.
  3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the eight autopsy photographs because they were relevant to the victim's injuries, the statutory elements of second-degree murder, and rebuttal of self-defense, and were not unduly prejudicial.

Key quotations

We conclude that Quist had no due process right to notice under SDCL 23A-37-15. (¶ 11)
The totality of the evidence in this case, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was clearly sufficient to support Quist’s conviction for second-degree murder. (¶ 15)
The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs. (¶ 18)

Factual background

Quist and Ron Witchey argued at a bar after Witchey requested another loan from Quist. Surveillance video showed Quist attack Witchey from behind, repeatedly strike and kick him in the head and face, and continue kicking him after he was motionless on the ground. Witchey died from a massive subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by a vertebral-artery laceration, and his body was released to his family and cremated before Quist could obtain an independent autopsy. Quist claimed self-defense, but his own forensic pathologist agreed with the State's expert regarding the cause of death.

Procedural history

Quist was initially arrested and charged with first-degree manslaughter after the victim died. A superseding indictment charged second-degree murder. Following a jury conviction, the circuit court entered final judgment, and Quist appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…