State v. Graham
2012 SD 42
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Graham was extradited from Canada on a federal premeditated murder charge and later charged in state court with felony murder based on kidnapping Aquash.
- The State’s theory linked Aquash’s kidnapping to AIM leaders’ belief she was a government informant, leading to her murder in the Badlands in late November 1975.
- The jury convicted Graham of felony murder but acquitted him of premeditated murder; he was sentenced to life without parole.
- The State admitted out-of-court statements to prove motive and chain of events surrounding Aquash’s kidnapping and murder.
- Graham challenged specialty under the extradition treaty, the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the life-without-parole sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specialty doctrine jurisdiction on felony murder | Graham argues specialty deprived state court of jurisdiction. | State contends Canada waived specialty; prosecution fits the waiver and same facts. | Waiver by Canada permitted prosecution for felony murder; jurisdiction valid. |
| Admissibility of Looking Cloud and Maloney statements | Graham contends 2002 statement and Maloney testimony are improper hearsay. | State argues prior consistent statement exception applies; motive to fabricate raised. | Looking Cloud’s 2002 statement admitted as prior consistent statement; Maloney testimony permitted accordingly. |
| Admissibility of Yellow Wood testimony about Gun incident | Yellow Wood’s repetition of Aquash’s statement regarding a gun is hearsay within hearsay. | Evidence offered for motive/rumor context, not for truth of Aquash’s statement. | Yellow Wood’s testimony constituted hearsay within hearsay and was inadmissible for the truth of Aquash’s statement. |
| Admissibility of Kamook Ecoffey’s testimony about Peltier’s admission | Ecoffey’s testimony about Peltier’s admission should be excluded as hearsay. | Testimony used to show Aquash overheard a self-incriminating statement, not to prove truth of the admission. | Not hearsay; testimony offered for relevant purpose of motive to kill Aquash; admissible. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence and life sentence | Insufficient evidence to prove felony murder; life sentence unauthorized and unconstitutional. | Evidence linked kidnapping to murder; sentence authorized by statute and not grossly disproportionate. | Evidence sufficient; life sentence without parole authorized by Brim; sentence not grossly disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Puentes, 50 F.3d 1567 (11th Cir. 1995) (standing to challenge specialty and treaty waivers by extradited defendant)
- Ker v. Illinois, - (-) (abduction, not extradition, not within treaty; jurisdictional distinction)
- Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (1887) (doctrine of specialty origins in extradition)
- Browne, 205 U.S. 309 (1907) (consent to extradition limits from one offense to another)
- United States v. Valencia-Trujillo, 573 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2009) (explains specialty waiver and personal jurisdiction)