State v. Shelton, 958 N.W.2d 721

A female confidential informant (CI) who had an ongoing drug relationship with Shelton made a controlled buy of methamphetamine from him on July 10, 2018; she was equipped with a recording/transmitting device and given pre-recorded buy money.
While the CI was inside Shelton’s apartment he removed her phones and placed them out of view, causing law enforcement to lose monitoring for about eight minutes; the CI later delivered a baggie containing 0.48 g meth to officers.
Shelton was indicted for possession, distribution, and distribution in a drug-free zone; the State alleged habitual-offender enhancements based on multiple prior felonies.
At trial the audio recording of the buy was played; a typed transcript was used as a demonstrative aid but the court later ruled it was not admitted as evidence; the transcript was nonetheless inadvertently sent to the jury during deliberations.
The jury convicted on all counts; the court sentenced Shelton as a habitual offender to concurrent 15-year terms for possession and distribution and a consecutive 25-year term (15 years suspended) for distribution in a drug-free zone.
Shelton appealed, arguing (1) abuse of discretion in excluding the CI agreement and demonstratives, (2) abuse of discretion in denying a new trial after the transcript was sent to the jury, and (3) his sentence is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of written CI agreement	Agreement did not show CI compensation and was irrelevant and confidential; admission would be cumulative and prejudicial	Agreement would prove CI was paid and bear on credibility; demonstratives would impeach CI’s description of container/size	No abuse of discretion; written agreement irrelevant to payment issue; demonstratives lacked adequate foundation or were needlessly cumulative/misleading; exclusion not prejudicial
Admission of transcript / new trial	Any error not prejudicial: transcript was used as demonstrative at trial, jury had recording, limiting instruction given, and no contemporaneous objection	Sending transcript back violated court’s ruling and could have affected verdict	Denial of new trial affirmed; error in sending transcript not prejudicial given prior use at trial, limiting instruction, testimony, and lack of objection
Eighth Amendment challenge to sentence	Sentence lawful and within statutory range for a habitual offender with multiple prior drug felonies	Sentence grossly disproportionate and court showed predisposition to harsh sentence	Sentence not grossly disproportionate; offenses and recidivism justify enhancement; parole eligibility and suspended time negate Eighth Amendment violation

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (balancing informant disclosure against public interest in confidentiality)
United States v. Lapsley, 334 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2003) (evidence materiality standard for informant-related disclosure)
United States v. Harrington, 951 F.2d 876 (8th Cir. 1991) (materiality requirement for disclosure of informant information)
United States v. Kirk, 534 F.2d 1262 (8th Cir. 1976) (transcripts of recordings ordinarily treated as demonstrative aids and should not go to jury room absent stipulation)
Osborne v. United States, 351 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1965) (delivery to jury of exhibits not received in evidence constitutes error)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment prohibits only grossly disproportionate sentences)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (recidivism may increase the gravity of the offense for proportionality analysis)
State v. Chipps, 874 N.W.2d 475 (S.D. 2016) (framework for state-level gross disproportionality review)