State of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Charles Russell Rhines, Defendant and Appellant

Summary

The visible portion of the opinion rejects Rhines's challenges to the admission of his confessions, capital-jury selection, South Dakota's capital-sentencing framework, evidentiary rulings, expert-assistance request, and jury instructions. It holds that the Miranda warnings adequately conveyed the relevant rights and that Rhines knowingly and voluntarily waived them; it also upholds the excusal of one juror, the State's use of peremptory challenges based on death-penalty views, the admission of victim-impact evidence, and the findings of pecuniary gain and torture. The court nevertheless concludes that the trial court's definition of the depravity-of-mind aggravator was constitutionally inadequate, while the text ends before the court's final disposition of the death sentence is shown. Justice Sabers and Justice Amundson, dissenting, would have found the death sentence disproportionate because the majority used an excessively narrow comparison pool.