State v. Willingham, 933 N.W.2d 619

Trooper Bader stopped an I‑90 Suburban for speeding and smelled marijuana; a search of the vehicle later revealed a duffel with packaged marijuana.
When Bader attempted to place passengers in custody, Donald Willingham assaulted him violently, causing life‑threatening facial injuries; the other occupants fled and later hid ~50 lbs. of marijuana and a .380 pistol.
Deputies located and arrested Willingham and three others at a motel; officers found $30,000 in the vehicle and, later, the gun and drugs using a photo taken by a passenger.
Willingham made unsolicited admissions at the scene, was Mirandized and interviewed twice (first evening and again the next afternoon), and invoked his right to remain silent during the first interview.
Willingham was indicted for attempted first‑degree murder, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, possession with intent to distribute, possession, and commission of a felony with a firearm; he moved to suppress evidence and statements and requested lesser‑included offense instructions.
The circuit court denied suppression motions and refused two proposed lesser‑included instructions; a jury convicted Willingham on all counts and the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Willingham)	Held
1. Validity/fruit of the traffic stop and derivative evidence	Stop lawful—Bader had reasonable, articulable suspicion for speeding; evidence admissible	Stop was unlawful/extended (racial profiling & duration); suppress derivative evidence	Waived some challenges; even if contested, exclusion unavailable for crimes committed in reaction to an arrest; suppression denied
2. Suppression of pre‑ and post‑Miranda statements	Many statements were voluntary or preceded custodial interrogation; formal Mirandas were adequate; post‑invocation interview complied with Mosley factors	Early statements involuntary (pain/intoxication); Miranda warnings incomplete; officers violated his invoked right to remain silent	Pre‑interview statements were voluntary; Miranda warnings conveyed required substance; second interview after 18 hours with fresh warnings lawful; suppression denied
3. Whether proposed instructions were lesser‑included offenses of felony‑with‑a‑firearm	Proposed instructions not proper because elements test not satisfied	Concealment or carrying concealed are lesser alternatives to felony‑with‑firearm	Elements test fails (greater offense does not require concealment); court properly refused instructions

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warnings requirement)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defines custodial interrogation scope)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (requires that invocation of right to silence be scrupulously honored)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (hospital interrogation and voluntariness in context of severe injury)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (routine booking questions exception to Miranda)
Evans v. Swenson, 455 F.2d 291 (Miranda warnings need not be verbatim; substance suffices)
State v. Miskimins, 435 N.W.2d 217 (defendant may not seek exclusion for crimes committed in immediate reaction to an arrest)
State v. DuFault, 628 N.W.2d 755 (preservation requirement for appellate review)
State v. McGarrett, 535 N.W.2d 765 (carrying a concealed weapon is not a lesser‑included of felony‑with‑firearm)
State v. Rolfe, 921 N.W.2d 706 (standard of review for suppression rulings)