907 N.W.2d 800
S.D.2018Background
- Victim Kari Kirkegaard was found dead in her bathtub on March 16, 2014; autopsy showed strangulation (ligature marks, fractured hyoid and thyroid cartilage) and vaginal trauma; manner of death: homicide.
- Semen in the victim matched Kryger’s DNA; mosque surveillance placed a bicyclist near the victim’s house around the time of death; witnesses identified Kryger as a possible match to that bicyclist.
- Family observed missing personal items and a strong bleach smell after first responders left; police investigated a nearby burn pit after tips and testimony linking Kryger to destroying a plaid jacket seen in video.
- Kryger was arrested and indicted on multiple counts including first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and second-degree rape; jury convicted on all counts except third-degree rape; sentences include life for murder and lengthy concurrent/consecutive terms for other counts.
- Kryger appealed raising multiple evidentiary and instructional claims, and challenged sufficiency of the evidence; the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Kryger's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examination of victim’s brother (Johnson) about threats should be allowed | Excluding threats was within discretion because threats had marginal relevance and risked unfair prejudice/confusion | Exclusion violated Confrontation Clause and deprived ability to show witness bias/motive to fabricate | Court affirmed exclusion as non-abusive and non-prejudicial; Johnson’s testimony was narrow and other witnesses corroborated key facts |
| Whether coroner’s testimony phrased as possibilities (consensual vs nonconsensual) was admissible | Testimony was expert opinion based on sufficient facts and helpful to jury | Phrasing as possibilities invited speculation and lacked reasonable degree of medical certainty | Admissible — expert gave opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and assisted jury; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether evidence/photographs of a burn pit were admissible without forensic linking to Kryger | Burn pit made destruction-of-evidence inference more probable; photographs accurately depicted investigative observations | Irrelevant without forensic foundation tying burned items to Kryger | Admissible — relevance goes to probability and weight; lack of testing affects weight not admissibility |
| Whether Kryger’s statements that he had a "criminal mind" were admissible | Statements were admissions against interest and probative of state of mind/intent | Statements were impermissible character evidence and unduly prejudicial | Admissible; court balanced Rule 403 and found no prejudice because statements were general and independent evidence of guilt was strong |
| Whether three trial incidents (parole reference, automated incarceration message, accidental juror encounter) warranted mistrial | Incidents were inadvertent and curable by instructions; did not affect guilt issue | Each incident violated pretrial orders and prejudiced the jury such that mistrial was required | Denial of mistrial affirmed — trial court acted to cure each error and found no severe prejudice |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions (incl. premeditation/depraved mind/force for rape) | DNA, surveillance, injuries, motive/circumstances, and circumstantial inferences support rational guilty verdict | State failed to prove mens rea elements and force beyond speculation | Denial of judgment of acquittal affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, evidence and inferences support convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Birdshead, 871 N.W.2d 62 (S.D. 2015) (cross-examination limitation standard; prejudice requirement)
- State v. Spaniol, 895 N.W.2d 329 (S.D. 2017) (Confrontation Clause and effective cross-examination analysis)
- Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 1991) (no "magic words" required to express expert medical certainty)
- State v. Patterson, 904 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 2017) (trial court discretion on evidentiary rulings and admission of expert testimony)
- State v. Bosworth, 899 N.W.2d 691 (S.D. 2017) (de novo review standard for judgment of acquittal sufficiency)