State v. Krueger, 950 N.W.2d 664

Background

Victim Keith Houck was reported missing; Kevin Krueger voluntarily told Deputy Shane Ball he had killed Houck with a baseball bat and buried him at Krueger’s farm.
Law enforcement executed a warrant and found Houck’s body at Krueger’s farm; autopsy showed fatal blunt-force skull fractures consistent with bat blows.
A baseball bat recovered near the body contained Houck’s DNA; black Velcro shoes attributed to Krueger produced DNA matching Houck in laboratory testing.
Krueger was indicted for first-degree murder (premeditated), tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment; co-defendant Vega pled guilty to a related manslaughter charge.
Pretrial motion to change venue was denied after local news coverage; the court conducted extensive voir dire and admitted DNA expert testimony though it excluded the physical shoes at trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence (denial of judgment of acquittal)	State: Confession corroborated by independent evidence (body at Krueger’s farm, bat with Houck’s DNA, texts, stolen guns) supports first‑degree murder conviction.	Krueger: No direct physical evidence tying him to the fatal blows, no eyewitness, evidence only shows presence at scene.	Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Change of venue / failure to reconsider after Vega plea	State: Media coverage was not inaccurate or inflammatory; voir dire can address juror prejudice.	Krueger: Pretrial publicity and Vega developments required transfer or at least reconsideration.	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in denying venue; defendant failed to renew motion and cannot show plain error.
Admissibility of DNA expert testimony (chain of custody / exclusion of shoes)	State: Laboratory scientist could reliably testify about DNA results even though the physical shoes were excluded; chain of custody supported by evidence tracking and photos.	Krueger: Because the court refused to admit the shoes, the expert’s testimony about samples from those shoes should be stricken.	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; chain‑of‑custody need not be perfect and testimony was sufficiently tied to the seized shoes; any error harmless given strength of evidence.
Prosecutor’s closing comment about victim’s father / failure to strike or give curative instruction	State: Court sustained the objection; comment was not outcome‑determinative and responded to defense argument.	Krueger: Comment was improper and prejudicial; court should have struck it and given a curative instruction.	Affirmed — remark was improper but the court sustained the objection and the error was not prejudicial given the strong evidence.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Harruff, 939 N.W.2d 20 (S.D. 2020) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal and sufficiency review)
State v. Patterson, 904 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 2017) (sufficiency standard and appellate review principles)
State v. Plastow, 873 N.W.2d 222 (S.D. 2015) (corroborated confession can sustain conviction)
State v. Schafer, 297 N.W.2d 473 (S.D. 1980) (mere presence not sufficient for aider‑and‑abettor liability)
State v. Weatherford, 416 N.W.2d 47 (S.D. 1987) (change of venue presumption and burden on defendant)
State v. Garza, 563 N.W.2d 406 (S.D. 1997) (voir dire as primary means to detect juror prejudice)
State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860 (S.D. 1979) (pretrial publicity must be shown prejudicial to require venue change)
State v. Reay, 762 N.W.2d 356 (S.D. 2009) (trial court discretion on chain of custody competency)
State v. Shepard, 768 N.W.2d 162 (S.D. 2009) (perfect chain of custody not required; reasonable probability standard)
State v. Bariteau, 884 N.W.2d 169 (S.D. 2016) (prosecutorial misconduct standard)
State v. McMillen, 931 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2019) (plain‑error review and its cautious application)