The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
- Sentence of 124 years
to Manslaughter 1st Degree reversed; “imperfect self-defense”
concept addressed
Summary
follows:
STATE
v. MITCHELL, 2021 S.D. 46: Defendant,
originally charged with 1st Degree Murder, pled guilty to reduced
charge of 1st Degree Manslaughter.
State recommended sentence of 60 years. Victim’s family requested
sentence of life imprisonment. Trial
Court sentenced Defendant to 124 years.
The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating that, “in
order to accurately assess the nature of [Defendant’s] conduct, the [trial]
court must consider the fact that he was reacting to a threat posed by [the
Victim’s] own assaultive conduct.” This
opinion discusses, for the first time in South Dakota jurisprudence, the notion
of an “imperfect self-defense” which is described in ¶36 as follows:
Contrasted from a “perfect”
self-defense claim where the defendant is “free from fault in bringing about difficulty with his
adversary” and “reasonably believe[d]” he
needed to respond to an adversary’s threat with deadly force, an
imperfect self-defense presents manslaughter as a different option for criminal
liability, short of murder and without
the potential of an outright acquittal. Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law, § 15.3(a)
(2020). The reason for the “imperfection” can
either be “the defendant’s own fault in bringing on the difficulty or
the unreasonableness of [his] honest but erroneous belief[]” that he is in
danger of serious or fatal injury which
he can prevent only by killing the victim. Id.
The
Court states, also in ¶36, that the imperfect
self-defense concept is fostered in SDCL 22-16-15(4) which is the operative
statutory provision to which Defendant pled guilty.
The
incident resulting in the shooting death of the victim was capture by video
recording which was reviewed by the trial court and the SD Supreme Court. The basic facts, as described in the opening
paragraph of the Court’s opinion are as follows:
[¶1.] After a brief
confrontation with Lucas Smith at a local bar, Jameson Mitchell armed himself with a handgun and
encountered Smith in a nearby alley.
Smith ran toward Mitchell, shouting for Mitchell to shoot him. After
taking a few steps back, Mitchell fired at the charging Smith, fatally wounding
him.
The
Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Salter, with all 5 justices
participating. (Note: Retired Chief Justice
Gilbertson participated, not Justice Myren who was not on the bench at the time
case was submitted.)
Justice
DeVaney filed a concurring opinion in order to “further
expound on why such a harsh sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Justice DeVaney further states:
[¶48.] There is also no
question that a sentencing court is free to disregard the recommendations of the parties, as well
as those of the PSI author if, in the #29194 -19- court’s judgment, a much
higher sentence is warranted. But in this case, after watching the video and reviewing the PSI, it
is apparent that a 124-year sentence— more than twice that recommended by those
most familiar with the parties and the
facts of the case—was not a choice within “the range of permissible
choices[.]” See MacKaben, 2015
S.D. 86, ¶ 9, 871 N.W.2d at 622 (citation omitted) (explaining what constitutes an abuse of discretion).
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
