856 N.W.2d 471
S.D.2014Background
- Engesser was convicted in 2001 of vehicular homicide and vehicular battery; trial centered on driver identity in a high-speed crash on I-90 where Finley died.
- The State presented Trooper Fox eyewitness theory that Engesser was the driver; no witness identified the driver’s gender.
- Witness Eckholm and Fowler later testified in habeas proceedings that a woman driver was seen, which could have undermined trial evidence.
- Engesser pursued multiple state and federal habeas petitions; Dasalla became a newly discovered witness in 2013 asserting a woman drove just before the crash.
- The habeas court granted relief under SDCL 21-27-5.1(1) based on newly discovered evidence; the SD Supreme Court affirmed the writ and ordered a new trial, ruling the statute permits relief without a standalone constitutional innocence claim.
- The Court discussed whether a freestanding actual innocence claim exists in SD, and ultimately held the habeas relief appropriate under SDCL 21-27-5.1(1) without addressing a freestanding innocence claim, since relief was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 21-27-5.1(1) creates an independent habeas remedy. | Engesser argues 5.1(1) allows relief based on new evidence showing no reasonable juror would convict. | State contends relief requires a constitutional error and that 5.1(1) is a gateway. | SD Supreme Court held 5.1(1) authorizes relief on new-evidence showing no reasonable juror would convict, without requiring an independent constitutional error. |
| Whether the newly discovered evidence meets the clear and convincing standard to warrant new-trial relief. | Engesser provided Dasalla’s testimony and other new evidence showing innocence. | State argues the new evidence is unreliable and insufficient to negate trial evidence. | Court found the Dasalla testimony and other evidence sufficient, when viewed with the record, to meet the clear and convincing standard under 5.1(1). |
| What standard governs review of habeas factual findings on innocence claims. | Engesser urges de novo review given the extraordinary remedy. | State seeks substantial deference to factual findings. | Court adopts a substantial-evidence standard (non-deferential) for assessing habeas factual findings on innocence, with independent review of credibility and weight of evidence. |
| Whether a freestanding actual-innocence claim exists under the South Dakota Constitution. | Engesser asserted a freestanding actual-innocence claim. | State contends the SD Constitution does not recognize such a freestanding claim. | Court indicates it will not consider a freestanding innocence claim on the current record, as relief was granted under 5.1(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (governs consideration of all evidence in Schlup-based innocence review)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (establishes standard for initial innocence review in habeas)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993) (addressing limits of actual innocence claims)
- Jackson v. Weber, 2001 SD 30, 637 N.W.2d 19 (S.D. 2001) (interprets prior habeas pleading standards in SD)
- Beach v. State, 302 P.3d 51-52 (Mont. 2013) (discusses actual-innocence review in habeas context)
- Engesser v. Dooley, 2003 S.D. 47, 661 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2003) (initial convictions and identity issues relied on at trial)
- Engesser v. Dooley (Engesser II), 457 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2006) (federal habeas procedural history on eyewitnesses)
- Engesser v. Dooley (Engesser IV), 823 F. Supp. 2d 910 (D.S.D. 2011) (district court decision on new evidence and Schlup standard)