State v. Bertram
2018 SD 4
| S.D. | 2018Background
- Victim Leonila Stickney was shot and killed during a 2009 hunting trip with her fiancé Russell Bertram; Bertram called 911 and transported her to the hospital where she died.
- Bertram was sole beneficiary of approximately $920,000 in life insurance on Leonila; the estate later settled a civil claim with Bertram, who retained a portion of the proceeds.
- Bertram’s counsel informed the estate that Bertram had passed a unilateral polygraph administered privately; the DCI rejected that polygraph and requested another, which Bertram initially declined.
- Years later Bertram was indicted (2015) for first-degree murder; at trial the court excluded evidence of Bertram’s polygraph result and admitted evidence that Bertram had sexual encounters with other women shortly before the shooting.
- Dailey (attorney for the estate) testified that the estate settled to avoid protracted litigation; defense sought to introduce the polygraph result to rebut that testimony and show settlement motive.
- Jury convicted Bertram of first-degree murder and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to the exclusion of polygraph evidence and to admission of other-act (sexual liaison) evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Bertram’s polygraph result | State: polygraph is inadmissible under SD precedent and Rules 402/403/702 | Bertram: Confrontation/cross-examination right and estate opened the door — result impeaches Dailey’s testimony about settlement motive | Court: Exclusion proper — SD per se rule bars polygraph results; even if considered, Rule 403 exclusion appropriate and no prejudice shown |
| Admissibility of evidence of Bertram’s sexual contacts before the killing | State: evidence relevant to motive, lack of attachment, and rebuttal of defense accident/love claims | Bertram: evidence irrelevant and improper 404(b) other-act propensity evidence | Court: Admission proper — relevant to motive and rebuttal of claimed relationship; any error not shown prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (upheld per se exclusion of polygraph evidence against Sixth Amendment challenge)
- State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D. 1985) (South Dakota rejects admitting polygraph results even for impeachment)
- State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D. 1985) (reaffirming exclusion of polygraph evidence)
- Sabag v. Continental S.D., 374 N.W.2d 349 (S.D. 1985) (polygraph evidence deemed unreliable and inadmissible under evidentiary rules)
- United States v. Tenorio, 809 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (polygraph-adjacent evidence admissible when limited to circumstances of administration, not result, where defendant opened the door)