State v. Birdshead
2015 SD 77
S.D.2015Background
- On Jan. 7, 2013, 15‑year‑old J.B. messaged Birdshead to arrange a drug transaction at the Dakota Rose Motel; Birdshead arrived in a car next to a van carrying J.B., Frank Milk, and Eustacio Marrufo.
- Milk and Marrufo jumped from the van and attacked Birdshead through his car windows/doors; witnesses disputed whether the attackers used only fists or also an object.
- Birdshead had brought a .410 short shotgun to the meeting (obtained the day before); during a struggle over the gun he fired and Marrufo died of a point‑blank chest wound.
- The State indicted Birdshead on eight counts (including alternative theories of first‑degree manslaughter, felony‑with‑firearm enhancement, possession of a controlled weapon, and distribution to a minor); Counts were severed; some counts were dismissed later and Birdshead pled guilty to distribution to a minor.
- A jury convicted Birdshead of manslaughter by means of a dangerous weapon (first‑degree manslaughter under SDCL 22‑16‑15(3)), possession of a controlled weapon, and an earlier firearm enhancement count was later dismissed at sentencing; he was sentenced to 45 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea instruction: whether jury instruction allowing "recklessly" lessened State's burden for first‑degree manslaughter | Birdshead: statute and structure require first‑degree manslaughter to demand greater mens rea than recklessness; adding "recklessly" permitted conviction on lesser mental state and relieved State of burden | State/court: first‑degree manslaughter is a general‑intent crime and pattern instruction properly allowed reckless doing of the prohibited act | Court: No reversible error; instructions viewed as whole were legally sufficient and did not reduce State's burden |
| Jury instructions emphasizing illegality of firearm (Instructions 12,13,32) | Birdshead: instructions and coexistence of firearm enhancement confused jury and prejudiced self‑defense/justification claims by emphasizing illegality of the gun | State: firearm illegality could be argued under possession count; instructions were lawful and cured by dismissal of enhancement at sentencing | Court: No abuse of discretion; dismissal of Count 4 cured charging issue; juror affidavits not considered; overall instructions sufficient |
| Denial of Birdshead’s proposed instruction that illegal possession may be justified when gun comes into control for self‑defense | Birdshead: needed to inform jury that illegal possession can be excused if control was gained for self‑defense | State: Conaty allows narrow defense only where defendant came into control for self‑defense; here Birdshead did not obtain gun for that purpose | Court: Rejection proper—facts did not support the narrow Conaty defense |
| Failure to instruct on alleged felonies committed against Birdshead (kidnapping, burglary, assault, attempted robbery) for justification under SDCL 22‑16‑34 | Birdshead: needed instructions to support claim that lethal force was justified resisting a violent felony | State: evidence showed attack but no indication jury would have reached different verdict with those instructions | Court: No abuse of discretion; jury heard self‑defense evidence and would not likely have reached different verdict |
| Brady / discovery issues: State’s failure to disclose witness (J.B.) changed testimony and in‑camera records (UNET, DSS, school) | Birdshead: J.B.’s trial testimony contradicted prior statements and was impeachment material; court withheld records and gave no basis for in‑camera denial, violating Brady | State/court: J.B.’s change was impeachment but not suppressive; many records were properly reviewed in camera by judge; Brady applies to State suppression not court rulings | Court: No Brady violation as to J.B. and DSS/school records; remanded for inclusion/review of UNET files because record lacks those files and trial court did not explain in‑camera ruling on them |
| Admission of other‑acts (404(b)) evidence (July 2012 firearms/drugs) without on‑the‑record 403 balancing and prejudicial effect | Birdshead: court failed to perform two‑part 404(b)/403 analysis on record and evidence improperly painted him as armed drug dealer; highly prejudicial | State: evidence relevant to mistake/accident and experience with firearms; trial court indicated relevance and implicitly weighed prejudice | Court: Admission not an abuse; probative value (negating accidental discharge and bearing on self‑defense reasonableness) outweighed unfair prejudice; even if error, harmless; concurrence urges clearer on‑record balancing and limiting instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Roach v. State, 825 N.W.2d 258 (S.D. 2012) (standards for review of jury instructions and abuse of discretion)
- Schouten v. State, 707 N.W.2d 820 (S.D. 2005) (general intent and recklessness discussion)
- Conaty v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 102 (S.D. 1988) (narrow defense to illegal firearm possession when control gained for self‑defense)
- Pellegrino v. State, 577 N.W.2d 590 (S.D. 1998) (right to instruction on defendant’s theory when supported by evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutorial suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (Brady framework: favorable, suppressed, material)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not permit attack on conviction)
- Moeller v. State, 548 N.W.2d 465 (S.D. 1996) (404(b) other‑acts admissibility and purposes)