State v. Traversie, 877 N.W.2d 327

Background

On Feb. 5, 2014, Tanya Ross, her son C.D.R., and others called 911 reporting Rocky Traversie was high on meth, had struck family members with a brick, and was holding them in their apartment.
Officers arrived; Traversie returned to the complex, punched two officers and beat a third before being subdued; baggies of methamphetamine consistent with sale amounts were found on him.
A jury convicted Traversie of six counts of first-degree kidnapping, eleven counts of aggravated assault (including assaults on officers), possession of methamphetamine, and possession with intent to distribute; judgment and sentences were entered on six counts producing a 65-year aggregate sentence.
At trial, Traversie proposed a jury instruction adopting the Reiman/Curtis test (that kidnapping is precluded where confinement is only incidental to another crime); the court refused the instruction.
On appeal Traversie challenged: sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping; refusal to give his proposed kidnapping instruction; sufficiency for officer-assault and possession-with-intent counts (not preserved); and that his sentence was Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping convictions	State: evidence of unlawful confinement for a substantial period to terrorize/inflict injury supports convictions	Traversie: confinement was incidental to assaults and insufficient to prove kidnapping	Court affirmed: confinement was not incidental; assaults were instantaneous while confinement continued, supporting kidnapping convictions
Refusal to give Traversie's proposed kidnapping jury instruction	State: no instruction warranted because evidence did not support Reiman/Curtis framing	Traversie: jury should be instructed that kidnapping requires confinement separate from commission of other crimes	Court affirmed refusal: proposed instruction had no evidentiary support given short duration of assaults vs longer confinement
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault on officers and possession with intent	State: evidence supported convictions (officer injuries, meth sale-quantity baggies)	Traversie: challenges sufficiency	Not reached on merits: Traversie failed to move for acquittal at trial, so argument waived on appeal
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual) challenge to sentence	State: sentences fall within statutory ranges and are proportionate to violent offenses and habitual-offender enhancements	Traversie: aggregate sentence excessive	Court affirmed: no gross disproportionality; crimes were violent, officer assaults serious, and sentences were within statutory penalties/enhanced ranges

Key Cases Cited

State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860 (S.D. 1979) (establishes that kidnapping cannot be charged where confinement is only incidental to another crime)
State v. Lykken, 484 N.W.2d 869 (S.D. 1992) (applies the principle that kidnapping is not shown if restraint was only necessary to commit underlying offense)
State v. Reyes, 695 N.W.2d 245 (S.D. 2005) (recites the Reiman/Curtis test limiting kidnapping when restraint is incidental)
State v. St. Cloud, 465 N.W.2d 177 (S.D. 1991) (jury instructions are adequate when, read as a whole, they correctly state the law; no instruction required absent evidentiary support)
State v. Huber, 356 N.W.2d 468 (S.D. 1984) (trial court need not instruct on matters unsupported by the evidence)
State v. Brim, 789 N.W.2d 80 (S.D. 2010) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal is de novo; appellate court accepts evidence and favorable inferences)
State v. Fasthorse, 776 N.W.2d 233 (S.D. 2009) (explaining sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility determinations)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (framework for Eighth Amendment gross disproportionality analysis)
State v. Chipps, N.W.2d (S.D. 2016) (discusses South Dakota approach to Eighth Amendment proportionality review)
State v. Garreau, 864 N.W.2d 771 (S.D. 2015) (considerations in proportionality analysis and scope of review)
State v. Gard, 742 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 2007) (failure to move for acquittal at trial waives sufficiency arguments on appeal)