State v. Rice
2016 S.D. 18
| S.D. | 2016Background
- On December 2, 2013, a home-invasion plotted by Kevin James Rice resulted in two people being shot; Jordan LaBeau died and his father was wounded.
- Rice recruited others, provided a loaded pistol, and coordinated the plot based on information from a co-conspirator; two teenage co-defendants entered the house and fired the shots.
- Rice and three codefendants pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter; Rice was sentenced to 80 years with 20 years suspended (term-of-years, parole-eligible); codefendant Scholten received a largely suspended 30-year sentence.
- Rice appealed, arguing the 80-year sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment (gross disproportionality) and that the court abused its discretion by not properly weighing his background and by sanctioning a disparity with Scholten.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the Eighth Amendment claim de novo and any discretionary sentencing questions for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 80-year sentence is cruel and unusual (Eighth Amendment) | Rice: 80 years is grossly disproportionate to his manslaughter plea, especially compared to Scholten's lighter sentence | State: First-degree manslaughter is grave and an 80-year term (with parole eligibility) is not grossly disproportionate | Court: No Eighth Amendment violation — sentence not grossly disproportionate to the offense |
| Whether sentencing court abused its discretion (disparity, mitigation) | Rice: Court failed to properly weigh youth, limited criminal history, rehabilitation prospects and disparity with Scholten | State: Court considered those factors and found Rice was mastermind and most culpable; disparity justified by differing culpability | Court: No abuse of discretion — court reasonably found Rice more culpable and did consider mitigating factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (gross-disproportionality standard for noncapital sentences)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (compare sentence to offense and to other sentences in same/other jurisdictions)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (recidivist enhancements fold prior convictions into present offense gravity)
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (recidivist sentencing justification)
- Bonner v. State, 577 N.W.2d 575 (S.D. 1998) (previous SD decision on disproportionate sentencing; court declines to follow its Eighth Amendment analysis)
- State v. Chipps, N.W.2d (S.D. 2016) (explained South Dakota’s approach to gross-disproportionality analysis referenced in opinion)
- State v. Piper, 709 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 2006) (mastermind can be more culpable than the triggerman)
- State v. Page, 709 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2006) (same principle on relative culpability)
- State v. Bruce, 796 N.W.2d 397 (S.D. 2011) (sentencing court should consider defendant’s character/history; within-statutory sentences reviewed for abuse of discretion)