State v. Berget
2013 SD 1
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Berget pleaded guilty to first‑degree murder of Ronald Johnson and waived a jury to determine his sentence, with the court sentencing him to death after a January 2012–February 2012 pre‑sentence hearing.
- Berget and an accomplice attempted an escape from the South Dakota State Penitentiary in 2011; Berget attacked Johnson with a pipe, leaving him severely injured and later deceased, and the pair stole Johnson’s guard uniform.
- Johnson, a corrections officer, was killed during the attempted escape; Berget and Robert were later captured and the crime involved the use of a guard’s uniform to facilitate the escape.
- Berget had prior convictions for attempted murder and kidnapping, plus a lengthy history of escapes and disciplinary actions in prison.
- The circuit court found two statutory aggravators (Johnson was a corrections employee and Berget was in lawful custody) and imposed the death penalty; Berget appealed raising multiple trial‑and‑sentence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the death sentence was imposed under passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors | Berget argues the sentence was arbitrary and influenced by passion. | Berget contends the court erred in injecting non‑authoritative factors into sentencing. | No improper passion or arbitrary factors found; sentence upheld on this issue. |
| Whether the evidence supports the circuit court’s aggravating findings | State asserts the two aggravators support death. | Berget argues the court erred in finding aggravators or relied on improper evidence. | Aggravating circumstances 7 and 8 supported beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the sentence is excessive or disproportionate to similar cases | State contends death is appropriate given Berget’s crime and history. | Berget claims disproportionate comparison to other cases and co‑defendant. | Not disproportionate when weighed with crime and criminal against universe of similarly situated cases. |
| Whether Berget knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a sentencing jury | Waiver was knowingly made, with informed advisements. | Berget challenges the adequacy of advisements and the waiver. | Waiver valid; no reversible error found on waiver grounds. |
| Whether the court violated the Fifth Amendment by considering Dr. Bean’s psychiatric report at sentencing | Dr. Bean report and related testimony should be admissible; Estelle controls only in distinct circumstances. | Use of unwarned statements from the psychiatric evaluation violated self‑incrimination protections. | Error to consider Dr. Bean’s unwarned statements; remand for resentencing without that report. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Piper, 2006 S.D. 1 (S.D. 2006) (proportionality review universe for capital cases; two or more aggravators not required for death)
- State v. Rhines, 1996 S.D. 55 (S.D. 1996) (individualized sentencing; factors for mitigation and aggravation; life vs. death)
- State v. Robert, 2012 S.D. 60 (S.D. 2012) (proportionality review; universe includes cases where death penalty was before sentencing authority)
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (Fifth Amendment; limits on use of psychiatric statements in penalty phase; distinct circumstances)
- Page v. Piper, 2006 S.D. 2 (S.D. 2006) (recusal and individualized sentencing considerations post‑co‑defendant death sentence)