State v. Red Cloud, 972 N.W.2d 517

About 5:00 a.m. July 1, 2019, an uninvited, shirtless, tattooed man entered the Zueger family basement; the encounter lasted roughly 45–75 seconds before the intruder fled carrying a shovel.
Police later detained Anthony Red Cloud about a quarter mile away, shirtless, shoeless, with tattoos; officers conducted a one-person show-up identification with victim Joe Zueger ~3 hours after the incident, and Zueger identified Red Cloud.
Police collected DNA swabs from a bicycle outside the sliding door and from two shovels found at the construction site; lab testing matched Red Cloud to the bicycle but shovel results were inconclusive.
At trial the State admitted the lab report (Exhibit 15) via the lab tech’s testimony, but the actual written report was mistakenly not sent to the jury during deliberations; Red Cloud moved for mistrial, which was denied.
The State tried a part II habitual-offender information alleging two 1994 robbery convictions; the jury found Red Cloud a habitual offender after the court admitted certified judgments and fingerprint comparison evidence; Red Cloud argued the State failed to prove compliance with SDCL 22-7-9 (release within 15 years).
Red Cloud was convicted of first-degree burglary and two counts of simple assault and sentenced to an enhanced term (habitual offender); he appealed suppression denial, mistrial denial, and denial of judgment of acquittal on the habitual-offender issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Red Cloud)	Held
1) Denial of motion to suppress show-up identification	Identification was reliable under the Neil factors; suggestiveness outweighed by reliability	Show-up was unnecessarily suggestive (single suspect, handcuffed, officers present) and created substantial risk of misidentification	Affirmed: show-up was suggestive but, under totality (opportunity, attention, prior description, short lapse), ID was reliable and admissible
2) Denial of mistrial for failing to submit Exhibit 15 to jury	Omission was harmless because expert testified to exhibit contents and was cross-examined; report also contained inculpatory bicycle match	Jury was deprived of the written report showing shovel DNA inconclusive; prejudicial error warrants mistrial	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; error was not prejudicial given testimony, cross-examination, and bicycle match
3) Denial of judgment of acquittal on Part II habitual offender information	Jury need only decide identity that defendant is same person as in prior judgments; compliance with SDCL 22-7-9 (release within 15 years) is a court-level, not jury, determination	State failed to prove release within 15 years as required by SDCL 22-7-9; acquittal required	Affirmed: jury decides identity only; court erred in saying defendant had to move pretrial, but error harmless—PSI showed release within 15 years and defendant raised no contrary claim at sentencing

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (sets factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identifications)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (due process test where identification procedure is suggestive but reliability must be assessed under totality)
United States v. Hadley, 671 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1982) (show-ups are inherently suggestive but not automatically violative)
State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860 (S.D. 1979) (condemns one-person show-ups; unique physical features aid witness ID)
State v. Doap Deng Chuol, 849 N.W.2d 255 (S.D. 2014) (explains review standards and evaluates witness opportunity/attention for ID reliability)
State v. Angle, 958 N.W.2d 501 (S.D. 2021) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Thomas, 922 N.W.2d 9 (S.D. 2019) (mistrial relief reviewed for abuse of discretion; actual prejudice required)
State v. Loop, 422 N.W.2d 420 (S.D. 1988) (defendant may challenge prior convictions pretrial or at trial when used for enhancement)
State v. Moves Camp, 376 N.W.2d 567 (S.D. 1985) (habitual-offender jury issue is identity of defendant)
State v. Garritsen, 421 N.W.2d 499 (S.D. 1988) (reiterates identity as sole jury issue in habitual-offender proceedings)
Perdue v. State, 341 N.W.2d 382 (S.D. 1983) (SDCL 22-7-9 construed as a limitations statute excluding stale convictions)