State v. Thomas, 2011 SD 15

Nathaniel Thomas was convicted of Reckless Burning, a Class 4 felony, following a trial in Clay County.
The Fire at the Pressbox bar and restaurant in Vermillion began in the early morning hours on September 29, 2008, with investigators recovering a Molotov-like device at the scene.
Detective Brady linked Thomas to the fire after interviewing Ryan Kightlinger and Jimmy and Jeremy Broomfield, leading to subsequent statements implicating Thomas.
Thomas admitted calling 911 at 3:34 a.m. but claimed the Broomfields left his house hours earlier; cell records showed eight calls around 2:50–3:34 a.m. to/from Broomfields and his mother.
The Broomfields testified as primary implicating witnesses; Thomas contended they lied due to plea agreements and animosity.
The circuit court sua sponte gave an accomplice-corroboration instruction (Instruction 16), and the defense argued it was incomplete; trial counsel did not object or propose related defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accomplice instruction adequacy	Thomas argues the instruction misdescribed corroboration for accomplices.	State contends instruction, framed for co-defendants, properly applied and adequate.	No plain error; instruction applied to co-defendants but adequate under the circumstances.
Ineffective assistance for failing to request cautionary instruction	Thomas argues counsel’s failure to request a cautionary instruction violated his rights.	State disputes that failure caused prejudice or ineffectiveness.	Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; prejudice shown; reverse and remand for new trial.

Beene, 257 N.W.2d 589 (S.D. 1977) (accomplice testimony warrants cautious consideration and corroboration instruction)
Grooms v. State, 320 N.W.2d 149 (S.D. 1982) (accomplice instruction needed to address lack of corroboration between accomplices)
McBride, 296 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 1980) (without corroboration of accomplice, conviction may be improper)
Wiegers, 373 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 1985) (limits on using one accomplice to corroborate another)
Dominiack, 334 N.W.2d 51 (S.D. 1983) (need for additional instructions regarding accomplice corroboration)
Bowker, 754 N.W.2d 56 (S.D. 2008) (plain-error and ineffective-assistance review framework in trial-judicial errors)
Beene, 257 N.W.2d 589 (S.D. 1977) (reiterated cautionary accomplice instruction when warranted)
Cash v. Culver, 358 U.S. 633 (U.S. 1959) (due process requires cautionary instruction when accomplice testimony is central)
State v. Robinson, 602 N.W.2d 730 (S.D. 1999) (standard for evaluating jury instructions on appeal)