State v. Medicine Eagle, 835 N.W.2d 886

M.E.H. alleges she was kidnapped and raped by Medicine Eagle in 2000; DNA testing later implicated Medicine Eagle.
Initial charges were dismissed when pre-2002 DNA testing did not implicate Medicine Eagle; case reopened in 2008 with new DNA methods (Y-STR) linking Medicine Eagle.
In 2009, grand jury indicted Medicine Eagle on multiple rape, kidnapping, and related charges; habitual offender allegation filed in 2010.
Before trial, the State sought to admit other acts evidence about an alleged 2003 assault on S.M. under Rule 404(b); trial court admitted it with limiting instruction.
During trial, DNA-test testimony from Leal covered 2008 and 2011 results, even though some steps were performed by non-testifying analysts; constitutional confrontation issue raised.
A separate Part II information for habitual offender was amended and then dismissed, leading to a dispute over whether a valid Part II information remained to support the habitual offender conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of S.M. incident as 404(b) evidence	Medicine Eagle argues plan/scheme evidence was improper and remote in time.	State contends subsequent similar acts can prove common plan; proper limiting instructions given.	Admission affirmed; evidence for plan/common scheme admissible with proper limiting instruction.
Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Leal's testimony about Y-STR testing	Leal's testimony violated confrontation rights because some steps were done by non-testifying analysts.	Leal performed substantive review and independent conclusions; charts/summary presented; trial allowed cross-examination.	Confrontation rights not violated; Leal's testimony and summary chart were permissible.
Validity of Part II information and trial jurisdiction for habitual offender	Amended Part II Information effectively dismissed the original Part II; no valid information remained to support habitual offender trial.	Trial court had jurisdiction; amended/dismissed filings can be treated as modifications; defendant waived objections.	Error; Amended Part II Information effectively dismissed original Part II; no Part II information existed; remand for resentencing.

State v. Mattson, 2005 S.D. 71 (S.D. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for admitting 404(b) evidence)
State v. Huber, 2010 S.D. 63 (S.D. 2010) (balancing probative value and prejudice in 404(b) determinations)
State v. Wright, 1999 S.D. 50 (S.D. 1999) (Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; confrontation required)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot replace testifying analyst when certifying report)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes jurisdictional defects from sentencing authority)
State v. Graycek, 368 N.W.2d 815 (S.D. 1985) (habituation information handling in prior cases)
State v. Honomichl, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D. 1983) (jurisdictional defect vs. waiver in information filing (pre Cotton))
Alexander, 313 N.W.2d 33 (S.D. 1981) (notice to proceed with habitual offender proceedings after dismissal guidance)
Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (indictment defects do not deprive jurisdiction; harmlessness review applies)