State v. Frias, 959 N.W.2d 62

Frias was indicted on multiple counts including robbery, second-degree murder (depraved mind), and first-degree manslaughter (dangerous weapon); attempted robbery was not separately charged.
Frias arranged a late-night drug transaction with Crystal Habben and Samuel Crockett at an apartment building; an altercation ensued, shots were fired, and both Zephier and Crockett died; Frias shot Crockett.
At trial the jury acquitted Frias of robbery, convicted him of second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter, but left the attempted-robbery line on the verdict form blank; the court read the verdict and dismissed the jury without placing the parties’ consent on the record.
Frias renewed a motion for judgment of acquittal (arguing insufficient evidence of depraved mind and that killing was justified by self-defense) and moved to arrest judgment (arguing attempted robbery wasn’t charged and the blank verdict deprived the court of jurisdiction/time limits for sentencing).
The circuit court denied the judgment-of-acquittal motion (finding sufficient evidence and that self-defense was a jury question), noted but found nonprejudicial the procedural error in dismissing the jury, later entered an acquittal on attempted robbery at sentencing, and imposed life for second-degree murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of Frias’s motion for judgment of acquittal on homicide convictions was error (sufficiency; depraved mind; self-defense)	State: Evidence (multiple shots, wounds to back/head, failure to render aid, circumstances) supports depraved-mind murder and allows rejection of self-defense.	Frias: Evidence insufficient to show depraved mind; killing was justified because Crockett pulled a gun and posed a lethal threat.	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational jury could find depraved mind and reject self-defense.
Whether the denial of Frias’s motion to arrest judgment was error (attempted-robbery instruction; blank verdict; jury discharge)	State: Included offenses and attempts are presumptively part of charged offense; court had subject-matter jurisdiction; no prejudice because attempted-robbery was later acquitted.	Frias: Attempted robbery wasn’t charged; blank verdict and premature jury dismissal (no on-record consent) deprived court of a full determination and jurisdiction for sentencing.	Affirmed. Motion to arrest tests subject-matter jurisdiction only; Frias’s claims were procedural/discretionary, not jurisdictional, and he showed no prejudice.

State v. Armstrong, 939 N.W.2d 9 (S.D. 2020) (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Brim, 789 N.W.2d 80 (S.D. 2010) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. McCahren, 878 N.W.2d 586 (S.D. 2016) (an included offense need not be separately charged in indictment)
State v. Laible, 594 N.W.2d 328 (S.D. 1999) (framework for determining ‘‘depraved mind’’ from conduct and circumstances)
State v. Harruff, 939 N.W.2d 20 (S.D. 2020) (observing depraved mind requires less culpability than premeditation)
State v. Stone, 925 N.W.2d 488 (S.D. 2019) (jury decides justification/self-defense where conflicting testimony exists)
United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1970) (historical discussion of motions to arrest judgment)