965 N.W.2d 580
S.D.2021Background:
- Victim Tamara LaFramboise disappeared after last being seen leaving work with Stephen Falkenberg on March 1, 2019; her decapitated and dismembered torso was found weeks later in Michigan.
- Falkenberg was the last known person to have contact with Tamara; investigators found Tamara’s blood in her apartment, clothing matching her items in a Michigan landfill, and a cadaver-dog alert in Falkenberg’s truck.
- Falkenberg had a swollen, later-fractured right hand shortly after Tamara’s disappearance; medical experts testified the injury was consistent with a fist striking a stationary object.
- The State presented forensic testimony that Tamara died of homicide (unspecified means), that her body was frozen and later dismembered, and tool marks were present on severed bones.
- A jury convicted Falkenberg of second-degree murder; he received life without parole. The court admitted evidence and photos of post-mortem dismemberment and ordered restitution including open-ended awards to a victims’ compensation fund and family counseling, portions of which were later challenged on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Falkenberg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder (depraved mind) | Circumstantial and direct evidence (last contact, fractured hand, concealment/dismemberment, statements, clothing in landfill) support finding Falkenberg acted with depraved mind. | Post-mortem acts (dismemberment) cannot be used to retroactively infer depravity; single blow theory insufficient to show depraved mind. | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find depraved mind; post-offense concealment and hand injury support conviction. |
| 2. Admissibility of dismemberment photos/testimony | Dismemberment evidence is relevant to consciousness of guilt, motive to conceal identity, and to explain inability to determine cause of death; photos aided expert testimony. | Evidence was irrelevant to cause of death, highly prejudicial, cumulative, and likely to inflame jury. | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion: evidence relevant, not unduly cumulative, and limiting instruction was given. |
| 3. Restitution order (open-ended awards) | Requested restitution for prosecution costs, victims’ compensation awards, and counseling; court may order ascertainable future counseling restitution. | Order requiring up to $15,000 to Fund and up to $40,000 to family was speculative, lacked documentation, violated due process and separation of powers by delegating/reserving amounts. | Partially reversed. Trial court erred: remand for restitution hearing. Court may order past incurred and ascertainable future counseling costs with adequate evidence; open-ended caps without mechanism vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harruff, 939 N.W.2d 20 (S.D. 2020) (explains mens rea for second-degree murder fewer elements than first-degree/pretext for depraved-mind analysis)
- State v. Miller, 851 N.W.2d 703 (S.D. 2014) (supports that violent acts causing death can satisfy depraved-mind standard)
- State v. Hart, 584 N.W.2d 863 (S.D. 1998) (lack of regard for life supports second-degree murder conviction)
- State v. Quist, 910 N.W.2d 900 (S.D. 2018) (standards for admitting gruesome/photographic evidence and undue prejudice)
- State v. Hemminger, 904 N.W.2d 746 (S.D. 2017) (autopsy photographs admissible when necessary for expert testimony despite gruesomeness)
- State v. Holsing, 736 N.W.2d 883 (S.D. 2007) (restitution must be ascertainable at sentencing; limits on later increasing restitution)
- Rivers v. United States, 270 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1959) (post-offense concealment/dismemberment admissible to show intent/consciousness of guilt)
- United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismemberment evidence relevant to motive, premeditation, and consciousness of guilt)