State v. Horned Eagle
2016 SD 67
| S.D. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 28, 2014, Cheryl Walking Crow reported she had been raped; officers located Keith Horned Eagle nearby and obtained consented swabs and clothing for testing.
- Forensic testing found Horned Eagle’s DNA on a penile swab and his and Walking Crow’s DNA on a finger swab; no seminal fluid was detected on Walking Crow or her underwear.
- At trial Walking Crow testified she was assaulted and ejaculated on; the nurse and officers observed no injuries and DNA/semen test results conflicted with parts of her account.
- Defense moved to inspect prosecutor (and prosecutor’s office) notes summarizing Walking Crow’s prior oral statements under SDCL 23A‑13‑10(4); the circuit court denied production, ruling the notes were attorney work product.
- Horned Eagle was convicted; on appeal he argued the court’s refusal violated his due process and confrontation rights because SDCL 23A‑13‑10(4) requires production of third‑party written summaries of a witness’s oral statements.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Horned Eagle's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 23A‑13‑10(4) requires production of prosecutor/office notes summarizing a witness’s oral statements | Notes are attorney work product and protected; only verbatim grand jury transcript was required | Notes summarizing prior oral statements are "statements" under SDCL 23A‑13‑10(4) and must be produced (in camera if needed) | The statute unambiguously covers summaries of oral declarations by others; court erred in denying in camera review and production if discoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D. 1985) (police officer’s original notes not produced where typed reports and all statements had been provided)
- People v. Szabo, 447 N.E.2d 193 (Ill. 1983) (in camera review appropriate to resolve privilege/discovery disputes over prosecutor materials)
- Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. Acuity, 771 N.W.2d 623 (S.D. 2009) (preferred procedure for privilege issues is in camera review)
- State v. Birdshead, 871 N.W.2d 62 (S.D. 2015) (suppressed evidence must be prejudicial to warrant a new trial)