State v. Wolf, 941 N.W.2d 216

Wolf, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, confronted DOC Officer Darek Ekeren after Wolf’s tablet was confiscated and refused to leave a restricted area (Tier 2).
Wolf charged Ekeren, who fell; Wolf then punched and kneed Ekeren in the head/face and later put him in a chokehold that briefly impaired breathing; the physical encounter lasted ~30 seconds.
Ekeren sought emergency treatment for a laceration under his eye, facial bruising, and later a knee sprain; Wolf admitted hitting Ekeren over twenty times and that he ‘‘went into a rage.’’
A grand jury indicted Wolf on multiple counts including Count 1: aggravated assault (attempt to cause serious bodily injury under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference).
After the State’s case, the court granted a judgment of acquittal on the serious-bodily-injury theory; the jury convicted Wolf on Count 1 (extreme indifference) and on a lesser simple-assault count, acquitting on a separate choking-based aggravated-assault count.
Post-verdict the court granted Wolf’s renewed judgment of acquittal on Count 1; the State appealed that grant arguing the evidence supported the jury’s guilty verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support aggravated assault under SDCL 22-18-1.1(1) (attempt to cause serious bodily injury under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference)	State: Wolf’s violent, repeated punches/knees, chokehold, admissions, and context (locked cellblock, concrete floor) supported a finding of attempted serious injury and extreme indifference	Wolf: Injuries were minor, attack abated without third-party intervention, and jury’s acquittal on choking undermines Count 1	Reversed circuit court; evidence viewed in the light most favorable to verdict was sufficient; reinstated aggravated-assault conviction and remanded for sentencing
Whether an inconsistent acquittal on a related count (choking) permits a post-verdict judgment of acquittal on Count 1	State: Inconsistent verdicts do not permit inferring insufficiency; court must review sufficiency of evidence for the convicted count	Wolf: Acquittal on choking shows lack of evidence to support extreme-indifference conviction	Court: Inconsistent verdicts are not grounds for acquittal; cannot infer insufficiency from acquittal on a different count; sufficiency review governs

State v. Hauge, 829 N.W.2d 145 (S.D. 2013) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence review is de novo)
State v. Carter, 771 N.W.2d 329 (S.D. 2009) (appellate review accepts evidence and favorable inferences supporting verdict)
State v. Miland, 858 N.W.2d 328 (S.D. 2014) (repeated, violent punches to an officer upheld as extreme indifference)
State v. White Mountain, 477 N.W.2d 36 (S.D. 1991) (elements of aggravated assault under attempt-or-causing-serious-injury theory)
State v. Rash, 294 N.W.2d 416 (S.D. 1980) (framework for aggravated-assault elements)
State v. Mulligan, 736 N.W.2d 808 (S.D. 2007) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require vacating other convictions)
State v. Shaw, 705 N.W.2d 620 (S.D. 2005) (sufficiency review principles)