911 N.W.2d 644
S.D.2018Background
- Chris Miller was convicted in 2013 of second-degree murder and aggravated assault of his infant son; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- During jury selection the court planned for 12 jurors, 3 alternates, and 22 peremptory strikes per side (total 59 qualified jurors needed).
- Over two days the clerk’s final juror list mistakenly included 60 qualified names; the State’s first peremptory strike was exercised on the 60th name (juror #117).
- After peremptory strikes were exhausted, the court realized 16 potential jurors remained (one too many); the court declared the State’s first strike invalid and struck juror #108 instead.
- Miller did not challenge jury selection on direct appeal; he later raised habeas claims arguing the selection errors were structural and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for not challenging the process.
- The habeas court found statutory and procedural errors but held they were not structural and were harmless; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury-selection errors were structural | The court’s procedural mistakes (extra peremptory strikes; 60 names; extra State strike) fundamentally altered trial framework and require automatic reversal | Errors were procedural, did not undermine random selection or impartiality, thus subject to harmless-error review | Not structural; errors were harmless because all jurors were questioned, passed for cause, and jury was impartial |
| Whether the court’s striking of juror #108 gave State an extra peremptory challenge | Court’s action unlawfully granted the State an extra strike and prejudiced Miller | Even if improper, mistaken denial/granting of peremptory strikes is not necessarily reversible per se and can be harmless | Granting an extra peremptory was procedural and harmless under state law (did not render trial unreliable) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to selection procedure | Counsel’s failure to object or propose cures fell below reasonable standard and prejudiced Miller | Counsel’s performance presumed reasonable; no showing of prejudice or deficient strategy | Ineffective-assistance claim denied—Miller did not overcome presumption of competent counsel or show prejudice |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising jury-selection errors on direct appeal | Appellate counsel’s omission waived a viable structural-error claim | No viable structural-error claim existed; appellate strategy reasonable | Appellate-counsel claim fails—no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blem, 610 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 2000) (material failure to comply with jury-selection statutes can be structural error)
- Guthmiller v. Weber, 804 N.W.2d 400 (S.D. 2011) (explaining structural-error doctrine and exclusion of functional equivalents)
- State v. Arguello, 873 N.W.2d 490 (S.D. 2015) (court should be present during peremptory strike process; structural vs. harmless analysis)
- State v. LaMere, 2 P.3d 204 (Mont. 2000) (holding substantial failure to comply with jury statutes requires automatic reversal)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009) (mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge is not necessarily a structural error under federal law)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishing structural errors from trial errors for harmless-error analysis)