State v. Stevens, 2024 S.D. 3

Todd Stevens was investigated and convicted for multiple methamphetamine-related offenses in Brookings, South Dakota, including distribution and possession.
The investigation began after a tip, and evidence was gathered through surveillance, traffic stops, trash pulls, and a search warrant, revealing drugs, paraphernalia, and implicating correspondence.
Ashley Burgers, Stevens' former roommate and fellow user, testified for the State in exchange for immunity, acknowledging her involvement in drug distribution activities with Stevens.
Stevens’ counsel did not request cautionary or corroboration jury instructions regarding Burgers’ accomplice testimony; the court did not give any such instruction.
Stevens argued on appeal that this omission was plain error and also amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, especially given the reliance on Burgers' testimony.

Issue	Stevens' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was it plain error not to give accomplice testimony corroboration/cautionary instructions?	Argues that failing to give these instructions violated South Dakota law, requiring reversal.	Argues Burgers may not be an accomplice; other evidence corroborated her testimony; error is not plain nor prejudicial.	Failure to instruct on corroboration was plain error, but overwhelming corroborative evidence means no prejudice, so no reversal.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not requesting such instructions?	Argues this failure constitutes deficient performance and prejudiced the outcome.	Argues even if deficient, Stevens cannot show prejudice because of substantial independent evidence.	Given lack of prejudice under plain error, Stevens’ claim of ineffective assistance also fails.
Did corroborative/circumstantial evidence independently support conviction?	Argues convictions relied substantially on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.	Points to physical evidence, text messages, and other witness testimony as corroboration.	Court agreed with the State; independent evidence sufficiently corroborated Burgers’ testimony.
Is a cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony required sua sponte?	Argues both corroboration and cautionary instructions are mandatory under prior law.	Argues only required if requested by defendant; statute does not mandate sua sponte.	Court clarifies that cautionary instruction need only be given when requested, not sua sponte.

State v. Beene, 257 N.W.2d 589 (S.D. 1977) (articulated dual requirement for cautionary and corroboration instructions on accomplice testimony)
State v. Thomas, 796 N.W.2d 706 (S.D. 2011) (discussed plain error and ineffective assistance claims for failing to request accomplice instructions)
State v. Corean, 791 N.W.2d 44 (S.D. 2010) (definition and treatment of accomplice as a question of law or fact)
State v. Busack, 532 N.W.2d 413 (S.D. 1995) (definition of accomplice under South Dakota law)
Grooms v. State, 320 N.W.2d 149 (S.D. 1982) (ineffective assistance and necessity of accomplice instructions)