State v. Hemminger, 2017 SD 77

Background

On Jan 7, 2015, Jessica Goebel was found fatally stabbed; John Eric Hemminger called 911 claiming he had been stabbed by Richard Hanley and went to the hospital.
Officers met Hemminger at the hospital; he repeatedly referenced his cell phone to support his timeline, gave officers his phone passcode, and consented to officers taking his phone and clothing; a bloody knife handle was found in a coat pocket.
Investigators later obtained a warrant to extract phone data; deleted messages and other evidence implicated Hemminger. Officers, with consent from Hemminger’s friend John Roach, searched Roach’s house and seized a garbage bag containing bloody clothing identified as Hemminger’s.
Hemminger moved to suppress the hospital seizures and the items seized at Roach’s home, and later sought return of property after sending a revocation letter three weeks later; the circuit court denied suppression and return motions.
A jury convicted Hemminger of first-degree murder; he appealed, raising challenges to consent findings, search of Roach’s home, admission of 26 autopsy photos, alleged burden-shifting in rebuttal, sufficiency of evidence, and cumulative error. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hemminger)	Held
1. Whether hospital seizures (phone, clothing, DNA) should be suppressed	Officers had valid consent to seize phone and clothing; DNA seizure was justified under inevitable discovery / necessity	Consent was coerced by prolonged interrogation and misrepresentations; he revoked consent by letter and property must be returned	Court upheld consent for phone and clothing (voluntary under totality); DNA justified by inevitable discovery and later warranted search; denial of return was proper
2. Whether seizure at Roach’s home was unlawful	Roach had authority to consent to search of common areas and bags; items in entryway were within Roach’s control	Hemminger had standing as an overnight guest and reasonable expectation of privacy in his clothes; Roach’s consent didn’t cover the bag	Court held Roach had actual authority and shared control of entrance area; suppression denied
3. Whether admission of 26 autopsy photographs was abusive/prejudicial	Photos were relevant to expert testimony on cause, extent, and manner of injuries and to prove intent; not unduly cumulative	Photos were inflammatory, cumulative, and served only to inflame the jury	Court found photos admissible to aid the medical examiner, not needlessly cumulative or unfairly prejudicial
4. Whether State’s rebuttal shifted burden and warranted new trial	Rebuttal comments were responsive to defense and described state of the evidence; no burden shift occurred	Prosecutor implied Hemminger should have produced additional texts, shifting burden to defendant	Court held comments did not shift burden of proof; denial of new trial proper

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 851 N.W.2d 719 (2014) (de novo review standard for suppression issues)
State v. Akuba, 686 N.W.2d 406 (2004) (consent analyzed under totality of circumstances; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
State v. Mohr, 841 N.W.2d 440 (2013) (factual findings on consent reviewed for clear error)
State v. Medicine, 865 N.W.2d 492 (2015) (warrant requirement and consent exception discussion)
State v. Castleberry, 686 N.W.2d 384 (2004) (voluntariness of consent and knowledge of right to refuse)
State v. Fierro, 853 N.W.2d 235 (2014) (consent may be withdrawn but revocation does not retroactively invalidate prior lawful searches)
State v. Owens, 643 N.W.2d 735 (2002) (admissibility of autopsy photographs to assist expert testimony)
State v. Herrmann, 679 N.W.2d 503 (2004) (State entitled to present evidence including graphic photos to prove elements such as intent)