State v. Quist, 910 N.W.2d 900

On May 30–31, 2015, Bradley Quist assaulted Ron Witchey outside a bar; surveillance video showed Quist attack Witchey from behind, kick and punch him while he was on the ground, and linger before leaving. Witchey died the next day from a subarachnoid hemorrhage due to vertebral artery laceration.
Quist was arrested and initially charged with first-degree manslaughter; a superseding indictment charged second-degree murder under SDCL 22-16-7 (depraved mind, without regard for human life).
An autopsy by Dr. Koponen in North Dakota found injuries consistent with blows to the chin/face; Witchey’s body was returned to his family and cremated shortly after the autopsy.
Quist moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing SDCL 23A-37-15 required notice before returning property and that lack of notice deprived him of the opportunity for an independent autopsy (due process violation).
Quist moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence to prove second-degree murder and that his actions were self-defense or part of a bar fight.
Quist also objected to admission of eight autopsy photographs as cumulative and unduly prejudicial; the State’s pathologist used the photos to explain injuries and cause of death.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Quist)	Held
Whether indictment should be dismissed for failure to notify before release/cremation of body	SDCL 23A-37-15 notice requirement does not apply; body was released lawfully to next of kin	Statute required notice before returning property; lack of notice denied opportunity for independent autopsy and violated due process	Denial affirmed; statute governs return of "property" not a human body; no due process violation and no showing of lost exculpatory evidence
Whether evidence was sufficient for second-degree murder conviction	Surveillance, admissions, expert testimony established depraved mind and disregard for human life	Conduct was a bar fight/self-defense; evidence insufficient for murder	Denial of acquittal affirmed; viewing evidence favorably to State, a rational jury could find elements beyond reasonable doubt
Whether autopsy photographs were admissible	Photos were used by expert to explain injuries and cause of death and to rebut self-defense; relevant and not unduly prejudicial	Photographs were cumulative and prejudicial	Admission affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion—photos were relevant and aided expert testimony

State v. Hemminger, 904 N.W.2d 746 (S.D. 2017) (autopsy photos admissible to aid expert and explain cause of death)
State v. Owens, 643 N.W.2d 735 (S.D. 2002) (review of photographic evidence admission under abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Vatne, 659 N.W.2d 380 (S.D. 2003) (grounds for dismissal of indictment are exclusive under SDCL 23A-8-2)
Mexican v. Circle Bear, 370 N.W.2d 737 (S.D. 1985) (no property right in a dead body; burial/custody is quasi-property)
Lawyer v. Kernodle, 721 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1983) (discussion of quasi-property rights in corpses for burial purposes)