855 N.W.2d 668
S.D.2014Background
- Hayes was convicted by a jury of second-degree rape and two counts of aggravated assault for a November 2012 attack on R.S.
- The State presented DNA and forensic evidence linking Hayes to the assault, including semen on R.S. and Hayes’s DNA.
- R.S. testified that Hayes bound, threatened, choked, and assaulted her with a knife across a long duration; injuries and corroborating evidence were observed.
- Hayes argued on appeal that voir dire conduct amounted to structural error or prosecutorial misconduct and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
- The circuit court denied Hayes’s motion for judgment of acquittal; Hayes preserved only some objections, and others were not preserved for appeal.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, addressing the asserted voir dire issues, sufficiency of evidence, and lack of reversible error
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire error was structural | Hayes argues improper reasonable-doubt framing tainted jurors | Hayes contends State's conduct fell under structural error and required reversal | No structural error; issues analyzed as prosecutorial misconduct |
| Whether State’s voir dire conduct amounted to prosecutorial misconduct | Hayes claims improper questioning and improvisational remarks misled jurors | State's remarks were improper but not prejudicial; not preserved for all claims | Prosecutorial misconduct found in parts; not reversible error given overall fair trial |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support rape conviction | DNA and witness testimony insufficient to prove penetration and force | Evidence and corroboration showed penetration and use of force | Sufficient evidence supported rape and aggravated assault convictions |
| Whether cumulative errors denied fair trial | Rulings on earlier issues not reversible; no cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guthmiller, 2011 S.D. 62, 804 N.W.2d 400 (2011 S.D. 62) (structural-error framework; nuances of voir dire influence)
- State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61, 627 N.W.2d 401 (2001 S.D. 61) (structural-error analysis cited in context of fair trial concerns)
- State v. Moeller, 2000 S.D. 122, 616 N.W.2d 424 (2000 S.D. 122) (stakes-voir-dire guidance; staking out juror responses)
- State v. Fool Bull, 2009 S.D. 36, 766 N.W.2d 159 (2009 S.D. 36) (voir dire limits and purpose; improper argument considerations)
- State v. Janklow, 2005 S.D. 25, 693 N.W.2d 685 (2005 S.D. 25) (preservation requirements for prosecutorial misconduct)
- State v. Handy, 2010 S.D. 52, 785 N.W.2d 288 (2010 S.D. 52) (plain-error review framework for misconduct claims)
- State v. Hauge, 2013 S.D. 26, 829 N.W.2d 145 (2013 S.D. 26) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review in rape cases)
- State v. Scott, 2013 S.D. 31, 829 N.W.2d 458 (2013 S.D. 31) (voir dire scope and bias assessment)