873 N.W.2d 490
S.D.2015Background
- Defendant Joseph Arguello lived with a woman (R.D.) and her three children; he was charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual contact involving the children.
- At trial, Judge Jeff Davis gave the statutory jury admonition once immediately after empanelment, then told jurors at subsequent recesses to “remember the admonition” and once failed to admonish before a lunch recess.
- During presentation of two forensic-interview videos, the judge announced he would leave the courtroom for an unrelated matter; the videos were played to the jury in his absence with apparent agreement of counsel.
- Arguello did not raise a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal; he argued the judge’s absence constituted structural error and that the court’s intermittent admonitions violated SDCL 23A-24-5.
- The circuit court convicted Arguello; on appeal the South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed constitutional claims de novo and courtroom-procedure claims for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge leaving the courtroom during presentation of evidence is structural error requiring automatic reversal | State: judge’s temporary absence was not structural error and did not violate constitution | Arguello: judge’s absence deprived him of constitutional rights (counsel, due process, public trial) and thus was structural error | Not structural error; does not fit the six recognized categories from Neder/Guthmiller; absence improper but requires prejudice showing |
| Whether judge’s absence prejudiced consideration of motion for judgment of acquittal | State: record does not show prejudice; appellate review of sufficiency is de novo and defendant did not challenge sufficiency | Arguello: absence prevented judge from observing key evidence (videos), so motion could not be fairly considered | No prejudice shown; Arguello did not raise sufficiency on appeal, so conviction stands |
| Whether the court’s jury admonitions complied with SDCL 23A-24-5 | State: substantial compliance can suffice and no prejudice shown | Arguello: single full admonition plus repeated ‘‘remember the admonition’’ did not substantially comply; statute requires admonishment at each adjournment | Court held the judge failed to substantially comply with the statute, but reversal is not required absent a showing of prejudice |
| Remedy for failure to substantially comply with admonition statute | State: even where admonition deficient, reversal requires prejudice | Arguello: reversal necessary to preserve statutory effect | Court declined to reverse because Arguello conceded he could not show prejudice; admonition failure not grounds for reversal without harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthmiller v. Weber, 804 N.W.2d 400 (S.D. 2011) (identifies limited categories of structural error under Neder)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (explains structural error doctrine and categorical approach)
- O'Connor v. Bonney, 231 N.W. 521 (S.D. 1930) (disapproves judge leaving bench but affirms where no shown prejudice)
- State v. Brim, 789 N.W.2d 80 (S.D. 2010) (substantial compliance with admonition statute can suffice absent prejudice)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (no reversal where error produced no harm)
- People v. Vargas, 673 N.E.2d 1037 (Ill. 1996) (discusses potential adverse juror impression from judge’s absence)