State v. Harruff, 939 N.W.2d 20

Victim Kristi Olson was found dead June 1, 2017; autopsy concluded homicide by manual strangulation (asphyxia).
Defendant Chance Harruff was Kristi’s boyfriend; their relationship was violent and marked by prior physical abuse and repeated destruction/theft of her phones.
Cell‑phone records showed Kristi’s phone pinged between Dallas and Gregory ~4:00 a.m.; surveillance captured Harruff’s car near a dumpster where Kristi’s broken phone was later found.
Harruff initially denied visiting Kristi’s home that night, later admitted going, described a doorway altercation in which he shoved or struck Kristi and took her phone, and gave inconsistent statements to police.
At trial the State introduced testimony by multiple witnesses about prior incidents of abuse and Kristi’s statements; Harruff was convicted of second‑degree murder and sentenced to life.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other‑acts testimony (SDCL 19‑19‑403/404)	Testimony about prior abuse was relevant to motive, intent, identity, modus operandi and not substantially outweighed by prejudice.	Testimony from Wallace, Bridges, and Vosika was cumulative of Barry and York and thus should have been excluded as needlessly cumulative and impermissible character evidence.	Court affirmed: testimony was relevant, not unfairly prejudicial or needlessly cumulative; trial court properly balanced and gave limiting instructions.
Sufficiency of evidence for second‑degree murder (SDCL 22‑16‑7)	Evidence (strangulation injuries, Harruff’s admissions, circumstantial proof of presence and violence) supports depraved‑mind element and conviction.	Jury acquittal on first‑degree murder shows State failed to prove requisite mental state; second‑degree is not a proper fallback from primarily first‑degree proof.	Court affirmed: evidence viewed in light most favorable to State was sufficient to prove an imminently dangerous act evincing depravity of mind.

State v. Huber, 789 N.W.2d 283 (S.D. 2010) (past domestic abuse statements admissible; Rule 403 balancing favors admission when relevant)
State v. Laible, 594 N.W.2d 328 (S.D. 1999) (evidence of abusive conduct in domestic cases is highly relevant to give jury a complete picture)
State v. Kryger, 907 N.W.2d 800 (S.D. 2018) (strangulation reflects deliberate force and can show imminently dangerous act)
State v. Mulligan, 736 N.W.2d 808 (S.D. 2007) (a conviction cannot be attacked as inconsistent with acquittal on another count)
State v. Primeaux, 328 N.W.2d 256 (S.D. 1982) (second‑degree murder requires proof of depraved mind)
State v. Janklow, 693 N.W.2d 685 (S.D. 2005) (404(b) other‑acts admissibility: relevance and 403 balancing)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts doctrine; review sufficiency for rendered conviction)