929 N.W.2d 103
S.D.2019Background
- Delehoy was tried for kidnapping, assault, and rape of his girlfriend Vaughn; jury heard a phone recording in which Delehoy made incriminating statements.
- Vaughn’s friend Shepherd recorded the call on her cellphone; the State initially offered Agent Andress’s recording of Shepherd’s playback but later obtained Shepherd’s emailed original during trial and played it for the jury.
- Unknown to the court, only a portion of Shepherd’s original recording was played at trial; the unplayed portion contained statements about methamphetamine use.
- Defense objected to foundation, raised Brady and due process claims, and moved for judgment of acquittal or mistrial after learning the full recording had not been played; the court struck Shepherd’s testimony and the recording and instructed the jury to disregard them.
- Jury convicted Delehoy of second‑degree kidnapping and two counts of simple assault, acquitted him of rape and aggravated assault; court later sentenced him to 22 years on the kidnapping count.
- Delehoy appealed, arguing the court erred in denying a mistrial, cumulative trial errors denied a fair trial, and his sentence was grossly disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Delehoy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to produce Shepherd’s original recording before trial violated Brady and warranted a mistrial | State could and should have obtained Shepherd’s phone/recording; nondisclosure prejudiced his defense | No Brady violation: State did not know of the original recording; produced recording of recording pretrial; no prejudice from undisclosed portion | No Brady violation; no mistrial — undisclosed portion was cumulative and no prejudice established |
| Whether admission (and partial playback) of recording required a mistrial despite strike and curative instruction | Jurors hearing the recording (even if struck) inevitably prejudiced verdict; mistrial necessary | Court’s prompt strike and instruction cured error; presumption jurors followed instruction | Court did not abuse discretion denying mistrial; admonition cured error given circumstances |
| Whether cumulative trial errors denied due process | Multiple errors (Brady, altered recording, perjury) together deprived fair trial | No Brady; no established perjury rulings; record as a whole shows fair trial | No cumulative‑error violation; conviction stands |
| Whether 22‑year sentence for kidnapping is grossly disproportionate under Eighth Amendment | Sentence near statutory max excessive given circumstances and defendant’s age/rehabilitation prospects | Kidnapping is serious; sentence within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate | Sentence not grossly disproportionate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elements of Brady claim: favorable, suppressed, prejudice)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (some evidentiary errors are so prejudicial that jury instructions cannot cure them)
- Jones v. Slay, 61 F. Supp. 3d 806 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (discussed in context distinguishing §1983 qualified immunity precedent on good‑faith seizure of evidence)
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (federal §1983 decisions discussed; distinguished from Brady analysis)