State v. Good Plume, 799 N.W.2d 717

Defendant Ivan Good Plume, a Native American, was convicted of aggravated assault and faced habitual offender enhancements in Pennington County, South Dakota.
The underlying incident involved Good Plume striking Michael Gregg with a shovel during a confrontation at the Budget Inn after Flat Lip rejected him; a prior assault and ongoing drinking problems were noted in the record.
Good Plume had a history of drunken, violent, and abusive conduct toward Flat Lip, including an earlier incident where she was abused and he broke her nose.
At sentencing, the judge remarked that Good Plume’s behavior was described as ‘go native,’ which the defense argued showed racial bias and violated due process.
Good Plume challenged both the sentencing remark as biased and the admission of a letter he sent to Flat Lip as evidence, claiming improper Rule 404(b) treatment.
The court upheld the sentence, concluding there was no due process violation or improper prejudice based on race, and that the letter was admissible as res gestae rather than Rule 404(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the ‘go native’ remark show due process bias requiring resentencing?	Good Plume claims the remark reveals racial prejudice affecting sentencing.	Good Plume argues bias taints the sentencing process and violates due process.	No due process violation; no serious risk of actual bias
Whether the sentencing remark created an impermissible appearance of bias and required disqualification under due process	Appearance of bias suffices for disqualification.	Only actual bias matters; appearance alone is insufficient.	Appearance not enough; no disqualification
Was the letter to Flat Lip admissible under Rule 404(b) or as res gestae	Letter is 404(b) evidence of other acts and prejudicial.	Letter is res gestae and necessary to show intent; admissible with limiting instructions.	Admissible as res gestae, not as 404(b)

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (due process requires objective, not personal bias proof)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (objective risk of bias governs disqualification when appearance arises)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (racial bias in the judiciary is unacceptable)
State v. Page, 2006 SD 2, 709 N.W.2d 739 (2006) (due process standard and appearance considerations for bias)
State v. Hoadley, 2002 SD 109, 651 N.W.2d 249 (2002) (judicial remarks must not reflect bias; context matters)
State v. Fisher, 2010 SD 44, 783 N.W.2d 664 (2010) (res gestae as a carve-out from Rule 404(b))
State v. Goodroad, 1997 SD 46, 563 N.W.2d 126 (1997) (definition and limits of res gestae evidence)
State v. Tiegen, 2008 SD 6, 744 N.W.2d 578 (2008) (de novo review standards for certain claims)
State v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1991) (race cannot be a sentencing factor; federal guidance on bias)
Edwardo-Franco, 885 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1989) (race-based considerations prohibited in sentencing)