State v. Wilson, 947 N.W.2d 131

Background

In March 2014 Deondre Wilson, his girlfriend Shannon, and her father Steve had an altercation after Shannon asked Wilson to move out; Wilson struck Steve, knocked a 911 call out of Steve’s hand, and witnesses saw Wilson beat Steve.
Police body/in-car video and three 911 calls recorded the scene; Wilson made spontaneous statements at the scene claiming self-defense and accusing Steve of racism.
The State charged multiple counts including aggravated assault (domestic), several simple assault (domestic) counts, interference with emergency communications, and disorderly conduct; a jury convicted Wilson on aggravated assault (domestic), four simple assault (domestic) counts (one sentence imposed), interference with emergency communications, and disorderly conduct.
The court sentenced Wilson to a 15-year penitentiary term (10 years suspended) and county jail time for misdemeanors; the court later off the record modified the relationship of those sentences without Wilson present.
Wilson failed to timely appeal; after a habeas petition the court reentered judgment to allow a timely direct appeal. On appeal he raised plain-error challenges to evidentiary rulings and closing argument, a Miranda/custodial-statements claim, a claim that the "domestic" designation was an element and thus required acquittal, and a challenge to the off-the-record sentence modification.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Wilson's Argument	Held
1. Whether court committed plain error by admitting scene evidence (videos, 911 calls, witness/police statements).	Admission was proper under res gestae, present-sense, or excited-utterance exceptions; no plain rule required sua sponte exclusion.	Evidence was irrelevant/impermissible character evidence and constitutionally impaired Wilson’s trial.	No plain error; reasonable bases existed for admission and Wilson forfeited objection.
2. Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal (victim empathy / charging-process comments) was plain error.	Comments responded to defense minimization of injury; not improper vouching or community- conscience argument that prejudiced substantial rights.	Prosecutor made improper community-conscience and vouching remarks that required intervention.	No plain error; isolated remark about dental work was improper but not prejudicial; charging-process comment not improper here.
3. Whether court should have sua sponte excluded Wilson’s custodial statements under Miranda.	Wilson’s post-arrest remarks were spontaneous (not police-elicited); Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation.	Statements made after custody but without Miranda warnings should have been suppressed.	No plain error; record shows no interrogation and statements appear voluntary; Wilson failed to show prejudice.
4. Whether “domestic” designation was an element requiring acquittal after statutory changes.	Domestic notation is not an element of assault; Outka and Scott support that domestic designation does not change elements.	Domestic designation created distinct element under amended SDCL 25‑10 and thus convictions require proof of qualifying relationship.	Held for State on elements: domestic is not an element; but court lacked authority to impose domestic-designation and domestic-fee under amended statutes—judgment must be corrected to remove domestic label and two $25 fees.
5. Whether off-the-record sentence modification without Wilson or reporter violated his right to be present.	Wilson was present for trial and original sentencing; any absence at stipulated modification caused no prejudice.	Court violated statutory and constitutional right to be present; recordless modification was improper.	No reversible error shown; Wilson failed to demonstrate prejudice from absence or lack of verbatim record.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial‑interrogation warnings rule)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard; deficient performance and prejudice)
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (plain‑error doctrine standards)
State v. Outka, 844 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2014) (domestic‑abuse notation is not an element of simple assault)
State v. McMillen, 931 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2019) (discussion of plain‑error review and when error is "plain")
State v. Litschewski, 807 N.W.2d 230 (S.D. 2011) (court lacks authority to impose penalties not authorized by statute)
United States v. Mink, 476 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentencing court plainly erred by imposing unauthorized costs)