2025 S.D. 18
S.D.2025Background
- Dreau Rogers was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for killing his wife, Destiny Rogers, and sentenced to life in prison after a trial in which he argued that a third party, Donovan Derrek, committed the murder.
- Destiny was shot in the living room of Rogers’s home; forensic evidence indicated the shooter was in close proximity to her at the time of death.
- Rogers immediately accused Derrek, stating Derrek arrived, an argument ensued, and then Destiny was shot; Derrek claimed to have an alibi supported by text messages and the testimony of Alan Reddy.
- Evidence included gunshot residue testing, DNA analysis of the firearm, and phone records; some forensic evidence (like location data from Derrek’s phone) could not be extracted, and the phone was later released to Derrek before full analysis could occur.
- On appeal, Rogers argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal, in refusing a spoliation instruction after Derrek’s phone was returned/destroyed, and that the phone’s loss constituted a due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Rogers’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for Judgment of Acquittal | Evidence was insufficient; Derrek was the real killer. | Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict and forensic evidence linked Rogers to the crime. | Denied; sufficient evidence supported conviction. |
| Due Process Violation (Derrek’s Cell Phone) | The State’s failure to extract and preserve possible exculpatory location data violated due process. | No apparent exculpatory value before release; no bad faith; phone’s destruction was at most negligent. | No violation; no apparent value and no bad faith. |
| Spoliation Jury Instruction | Returning/losing the phone warrants an inference against the State’s evidence. | Bad faith by law enforcement is required for a spoliation instruction, which was not shown here. | Instruction was not warranted; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seidel, 953 N.W.2d 301 (S.D. 2020) (review of evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- State v. Harruff, 939 N.W.2d 20 (S.D. 2020) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Zephier, 949 N.W.2d 560 (S.D. 2020) (distinction between lost/destroyed vs. undisclosed evidence for due process)
- State v. Engesser, 661 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2003) (requirements for a spoliation jury instruction)
- State v. Bousum, 663 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 2003) (bad faith required for constitutional violation from evidence loss)