State v. Whitfield
2015 SD 17
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Law enforcement intercepted a package addressed to a hotel; inside a Lalaloopsy doll they found 37 grams of cocaine packaged with an air freshener. A controlled delivery resulted in a taxi driver (Deak) picking up the package for defendant John Whitfield, who later admitted sending Deak but denied knowledge of the drugs.
- Officers searched Whitfield’s living area in a NAPA trailer truck and found drug paraphernalia, cocaine residue, a Lalaloopsy doll, and an air freshener with residue; Whitfield consented to a phone search revealing call history linking to the taxi and two incoming texts from a contact listed as “JKenny.”
- The State charged Whitfield with (1) possession with intent to distribute, (2) possession, (3) possession of marijuana, and (4) possession of drug paraphernalia; a part II habitual offender allegation was also filed.
- At trial the court admitted the two text messages (offered to show knowledge, not for their truth); the court later granted a judgment of acquittal on Count 1 (intent to distribute) but mistakenly left Count 1 on the final jury verdict form. The jury nonetheless returned guilty verdicts on Counts 1, 2, and 4; the court struck Count 1 post-verdict.
- Whitfield was sentenced on Count 2 to five years (two suspended) after the court found aggravating circumstances justified departure from presumptive probation under SDCL 22-6-11; the dispositional order, however, did not list the aggravating circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the two text messages | Messages were admissible not for their truth but to show Whitfield had drug-related communications on his phone shortly before the offense, relevant to knowledge | Messages are hearsay and irrelevant because they were offered to prove that someone asked Whitfield for cocaine (truth of matter asserted) and lacked context/attribution | Court did not abuse discretion admitting the texts for knowledge (non-hearsay use); admission not prejudicial and court explicitly did not rely on them for intent-to-distribute ruling |
| Incorrect verdict form listing dismissed Count 1 | State: jury received correct instructions; evidence supported convictions on remaining counts; no prejudice | Whitfield: erroneous form led jury to consider and convict on a dismissed charge, undermining jury obedience to instructions and fairness (plain error) | No plain error. Jury had correct instructions, parties did not argue Count 1 in closings, overwhelming evidence supported Counts 2 and 4; error did not affect substantial rights |
| Requirement to state aggravating circumstances in dispositional order (SDCL 22-6-11) | State: sentencing court complied with statute’s substance by announcing aggravating factors on record; substantial compliance should suffice | Whitfield: dispositional order failed to include aggravating factors as statute requires; error undermines statutory mandate and entitlement to presumptive probation | Court erred in omitting aggravating circumstances from dispositional order. Remedy: affirm convictions and sentence but remand to amend dispositional order to include the stated aggravating circumstances on the record |
| Whether aggravating circumstances justified departure from presumptive probation | State: record shows felony history, parole violations, transient lifestyle, amount of cocaine, and supervision difficulty justify departure and penitentiary sentence | Whitfield: factors do not amount to a significant public-safety risk required to depart; sentencing comments about “breaks” were improper | No abuse of discretion. Court reasonably relied on prior felonies, parole violations, transient work, amount of cocaine, and supervision concerns to find significant risk and impose the sentence imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 789 N.W.2d 303 (S.D. 2010) (appellate review standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Graham, 815 N.W.2d 293 (S.D. 2012) (statements not hearsay when offered for non-truth purpose)
- State v. Charger, 611 N.W.2d 221 (S.D. 2000) (admission of conduct-related communications to show knowledge)
- State v. Nelson, 587 N.W.2d 439 (S.D. 1998) (plain-error doctrine and standards)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (harmlessness standard regarding preserved and plain errors affecting substantial rights)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (framework for plain-error review)