State v. Danielson, 2012 SD 36

Danielson was convicted of perjury after remand from an initial acquittal on grand theft; perjury alleged false testimony about replacing transmission parts on Dr. Tom Cox’s 1950 Studebaker.
Indictment charged he testified he had replaced parts inside the transmission, knowing it was false.
State presented expert and other witness testimony to show materiality and mens rea; trial court instructed materiality as a jury issue.
Danielson argued double jeopardy and moved to dismiss; the court denied, this Court later reversed and remanded, and on remand the jury found him guilty.
Defense challenged admission of used transmission parts (chain of custody, relevancy) and moved for a private investigator; destruction-of-evidence arguments were raised but not dispositive.
Court ultimately affirmed the perjury conviction and the denials of the motions for a private investigator, in limine, and to dismiss for destruction of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for perjury	Danielson contends materiality/mens rea not established	Danielson asserts lack of materiality and no specific intent to mislead	Sufficient evidence; materiality for jury; mens rea supported by record
Private investigator request	Request needed for defense; complex case	Request excessive/unnecessary	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Admission of used transmission parts	Parts relevant to chain of custody and authenticity	Evidence should be excluded due to chain-of-custody issues	No reversible error; chain of custody adequate; evidentiary rulings affirmed
Destruction of evidence	State destroyed evidence favorable to defense	Destruction prejudicial or in bad faith	No bad faith destruction; no due process violation; dismissal denied

Lachowitzer v. State, 314 N.W.2d 307 (S.D. 1982) (materiality and claim of right defense in perjury context cited for materiality)
State v. Maves, 358 N.W.2d 805 (S.D. 1984) (test for materiality in perjury cases)
State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773 (S.D. 1991) ( mens rea distinctions in perjury vs false statements)
State v. Williams, 748 N.W.2d 435 (S.D. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review in evidentiary destruction context)
State v. Brings Plenty, 490 N.W.2d 261 (S.D. 1992) (chain-of-custody standard for demonstrative evidence)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (S. Ct. 1984) (necessity of preserving evidence; materiality standard)