948 N.W.2d 333
S.D.2020Background
- On June 9, 2017, Mason Bryant stabbed Kenneth Rogers during an altercation; Rogers required two surgeries and incurred substantial medical expenses.
- Rogers’s medical bills were paid by Medicaid (through the South Dakota Department of Social Services).
- Bryant was tried, convicted of one count of aggravated assault (dangerous weapon) and several simple-assault counts, and sentenced to 12 years (three suspended).
- At sentencing the circuit court ordered Bryant to pay $31,246.69 restitution to Medicaid for Rogers’s medical expenses.
- Bryant appealed, arguing (inter alia) that Medicaid is not a “victim” under SDCL 23A-28-2(5); trial counsel did not expressly raise that statutory-interpretation objection below, so the issue was reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bryant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Medicaid qualifies as a "victim" under SDCL 23A-28-2(5) | Medicaid is a third-party payor that undertook to indemnify Rogers and thus fits the statute’s expanded definition of "victim." | Medicaid is a state-administered program (DSS) and not a listed "person" under SDCL 22-1-2(31); therefore it cannot be a victim for restitution. | Court: Medicaid does not fall within SDCL 22-1-2(31)'s definition of "person," so the court erred in that legal conclusion; but the error was not "plain" in context and did not affect substantial rights, so restitution order stands. |
| Whether detectives’ testimony that Bryant did not act in self-defense was improper | Testimony described officers’ investigative impressions; admissible and not prejudicial. | Testimony improperly vouched on ultimate issue of self-defense. | Court: No plain error; testimony admissible and not prejudicial. |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing remarks required a mistrial | Remarks were within permissible bounds of argument and did not prejudice jury. | Remarks were improper and prejudicial, warranting mistrial. | Court: Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 888 N.W.2d 207 (S.D. 2016) (addressed whether a state agency is a "person" for restitution purposes)
- State v. Fryer, 496 N.W.2d 54 (S.D. 1993) (third-party insurer was not a victim entitled to restitution under earlier statute)
- State v. Galligo, 551 N.W.2d 303 (S.D. 1996) (discussed eligibility of Indian Health Service for restitution under amended statute; reversed on retroactivity grounds)
- In re M.D.D., 774 N.W.2d 793 (S.D. 2009) (juvenile restitution to Medicaid upheld under separate juvenile statute)
- State v. McMillen, 931 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2019) (plain-error framework clarification)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard: forfeiture vs. waiver)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (error affects substantial rights only if it affected outcome)
- State v. Buchhold, 727 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 2007) (appellate review limited to plain error when issue not preserved)
- Zoss v. Schaeffers, 598 N.W.2d 550 (S.D. 1999) (statutory interpretation—courts must follow unambiguous statutory language)