State v. Little Long, 962 N.W.2d 237

Around 1:00 a.m. on Sept. 18, 2018, LaKendrick Thornton was shot in a car; his body was later found in a ditch and autopsy placed time of death between midnight and 2:00 a.m.
Two eyewitnesses (Kelsey Roubideaux and Ayom Mangor) testified that Henry Little Long, seated in the front passenger seat, produced a gun and shot Thornton in the chest; Mangor jumped from the moving car and left a shoe at the scene.
Investigators recovered the car, blood consistent with Thornton’s DNA, Little Long’s fingerprints on a passenger door item, and cell‑tower data placing the phones together near the dump site.
Margaret Walking Eagle (a family figure) gave a recorded police interview saying Little Long confessed (“I f*ing killed someone tonight”), but at trial she repeatedly claimed not to remember the interview or the events.
The State impeached Walking Eagle by eliciting her prior statements through Detective Mertes; Little Long challenged the admission as hearsay/subterfuge, a Confrontation Clause violation, and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
Procedural posture: Little Long was indicted, tried, and convicted of second‑degree murder and first‑degree manslaughter; sentenced to life on the second‑degree murder count; he appealed on evidentiary, 180‑day speedy‑trial, and sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Little Long)	Held
1. Admission of Walking Eagle prior statements for impeachment	Statements were admissible to impeach under SDCL 19‑19‑613(b); court properly refreshed memory and used detective testimony	Statements were hearsay used as a subterfuge to get substantive confession to jury; violated Rule 403 and Sixth Amendment confrontation	Court: admission of the inflammatory confession was an abuse of discretion under Rule 403, but error harmless given overwhelming independent evidence; Confrontation Clause not violated because defense declined cross‑examination opportunities
2. Compliance with SDCL 23A‑44‑5.1 (180‑day rule)	Delays (scheduling, competency exam) were caused/consented to by defense or otherwise excludable; trial occurred within tolled period	Court arbitrarily tolled 89 days (Jan 2–Apr 1, 2019) without good cause	Court: delays attributable to defendant’s counsel and competency proceedings were excludable; trial complied with 180‑day rule
3. Sufficiency of the evidence / judgment of acquittal	Eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and cell‑tower data supported conviction for second‑degree murder (depraved mind)	Evidence insufficient to show depraved mind; acquittal of first‑degree murder undermines second‑degree conviction	Court: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, sufficient evidence supported second‑degree murder; denial of judgment of acquittal affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (limits admission of testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment)
State v. Rufener, 401 N.W.2d 740 (S.D. 1987) (discusses limits on calling a witness as a "strawman" to introduce inadmissible hearsay)
United States v. Ince, 21 F.3d 576 (4th Cir. 1994) (cautions against impeaching one’s own witness with prior statements that contain the defendant’s alleged confession)
United States v. Logan, 121 F.3d 1172 (8th Cir. 1997) (applies Rule 403 balancing to prior inconsistent statements used for impeachment)
State v. Rodriguez, 952 N.W.2d 244 (S.D. 2020) (explains difference between unavailability for hearsay exceptions and availability for Confrontation Clause purposes)
Owens v. United States, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (discusses cross‑examination requirements and confrontation jurisprudence)
State v. Wills, 908 N.W.2d 757 (S.D. 2018) (clarifies that impeachment statements are not hearsay when used solely to attack credibility)