916 N.W.2d 461
S.D.2018Background
- At an October 2015 party in a Sioux Falls condominium, an AK-47 circulated among guests; witnesses said David Randle handled the rifle, was urged to put it away, and at times ‘‘played’’ with it.
- While seated next to Mikael Ashame, the AK-47 discharged; the bullet severed Ashame’s femoral artery and he died at the hospital.
- Randle gave two explanations: (1) an early statement to police that a masked intruder shot Ashame; and (2) a jailhouse phone call asserting the rifle slipped off his lap and accidentally discharged while he grabbed it.
- Evidence at the scene included discarded narcotics and bloody clothes from partygoers who fled; Randle remained and rendered aid. A UA showed multiple controlled substances in Randle’s system.
- Randle was tried and convicted of first-degree manslaughter, unauthorized ingestion of a controlled substance, and possession of two ounces or less of marijuana. He appealed, raising (1) denial of mistrial after a sequestration violation, (2) denial of mistrial after a prosecutor’s question about invoking counsel, and (3) denial of a jury instruction on excusable homicide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Randle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial for a witness’ sequestration violation was error | Violation was inadvertent and produced no prejudice; witness later testified consistently | Violation allowed witness to hear officer testimony and conform her testimony, prejudicing impeachment | Denial affirmed — no showing the witness changed testimony or was prejudiced |
| Whether denial of mistrial for prosecutor’s question about invoking counsel was error | The single unanswered question did not produce evidence or argument that defendant invoked rights; no prejudice | Question improperly highlighted exercise of constitutional rights and risked Doyle/other-rights prejudice | Denial affirmed — question improper but harmless because it was unanswered and produced no prejudice |
| Whether circuit court erred in refusing excusable-homicide instruction (SDCL 22-16-30) | Instruction unnecessary because defendant acted unlawfully and was not using usual and ordinary caution; court may resolve lawfulness | Evidence supported an accidental, lawful-act defense (weapon slipped) — jury entitled to consider excusable homicide instruction | Reversed first-degree manslaughter conviction and remanded for new trial — refusal to give instruction prejudiced defendant |
| Whether cumulative errors required new trial | State: no cumulative prejudice | Randle: combined errors undermined fairness | Not addressed because court found instructional error alone warranted reversal; drug/possession convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rough Surface v. State, 440 N.W.2d 746 (S.D. 1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sequestration relief and mistrial)
- Dixon v. State, 419 N.W.2d 699 (S.D. 1988) (prejudice standard when sequestration order violated)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (due process prohibits using post-arrest silence to impeach)
- Andrews v. State, 623 N.W.2d 78 (S.D. 2001) (evidence of unlawful conduct admissible to negate lawful-act element of excusable homicide)
- Birdshead v. State, 871 N.W.2d 62 (S.D. 2015) (defendant entitled to instructions supporting defense theory if evidence provides any foundation)
- Shaw v. State, 705 N.W.2d 620 (S.D. 2005) (standard for reviewing refusal of proposed jury instruction)