State v. Banks

994 N.W.2d 230

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Raymond Charles BANKS, Defendant and Appellant.

#29875

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

ARGUED MARCH 23, 2023

OPINION FILED July 26, 2023

KRISTI JONES, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, MANUEL J. DE CASTRO JR., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY, Attorney General, PAUL S. SWEDLUND, Solicitor General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

DEVANEY, Justice

[¶1.] Raymond Banks pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter. Prior to his sentencing hearing, Banks sought to introduce evidence of a polygraph examination regarding his role in the crime. The circuit court precluded the admission of the polygraph evidence and sentenced Banks to eighty years in the penitentiary with twenty years suspended. Banks appeals, raising the single issue of whether the circuit court erred in excluding the polygraph evidence in its sentencing consideration. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

[¶2.] Casey Bonhorst was killed by a single gunshot wound to his neck on the evening of February 26, 2020, after delivering a pizza to a home in Sioux Falls. The investigation of this incident led law enforcement to suspect Banks and Jahennessy Bryant as the perpetrators of the shooting. Bryant was arrested first, but on August 12, 2020, Banks and Bryant were charged as co-defendants in a five-count superseding indictment that included two counts of first-degree murder, one count of second-degree murder, one count of first-degree manslaughter, and one count of attempted first-degree robbery.

[¶3.] Throughout the entirety of the proceedings, Banks and Bryant have maintained differing accounts of the events that transpired leading to Bonhorst's death.

Both agreed that while walking from Banks's girlfriend's apartment to the duplex where Banks's aunt resided, they noticed a Domino's delivery vehicle parked outside the duplex. According to Bryant, Banks suggested that they rob the delivery man, but Banks claimed it was Bryant's idea.

[¶4.] As to the subsequent events, Bryant testified at a pretrial hearing that Banks approached Bonhorst, pulled a gun on him, and told him, "Don't move or anything, try anything stupid." Bryant explained that he started moving toward Banks to help him by holding Bonhorst from behind, but then he heard gunshots. After the shooting, both he and Banks took off running in different directions.

[¶5.] The roles were essentially reversed in Banks's version of the events, with Bryant being the shooter and Banks serving as the lookout. Banks claimed that he stayed back behind the house as a lookout while Bryant walked up to Bonhorst and put the gun in his face. According to Banks, Bonhorst threw some change at Bryant and lunged at him. Bryant reacted by pulling the trigger, after which they both fled the scene.

[¶6.] In November 2020, both defendants moved to sever their cases and the circuit court granted their motions. Bryant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State, pleading guilty to first-degree manslaughter in exchange for a cap on his sentence of twenty-five years in prison with twenty-five additional years suspended. As part of his plea agreement, Bryant was required to testify against Banks.

[¶7.] Later, Banks also pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter. His agreement capped the prison time he would have to serve at sixty years with the possibility of more time suspended. At Banks's change of plea hearing, the State described the factual basis for the plea in accord with Bryant's version of the events, with Banks being the shooter. Banks contested this factual basis and alleged that while the underlying facts provided by the State were true, the roles were reversed. Banks claimed Bryant was the shooter but acknowledged to the court that he knew a robbery was going to occur and that he stood by as a lookout. In response to further questions from the court about his actions, Banks admitted that he was aiding and abetting the situation. The court then accepted Banks's guilty plea.

[¶8.] Two days before his sentencing hearing, Banks notified the court and counsel that he was planning to offer the testimony of Mike Webb, a polygraph examiner, regarding the results of a polygraph examination Banks had recently taken at the jail, which supported his version of the shooting. The polygraph report states that in the examiner's opinion, Banks showed "no significant reaction indicating deception" when he answered "no" to questions regarding whether he had shot Bonhorst on the date in question.

[¶9.] Prior to the hearing, the State objected to the admission of any testimony regarding the polygraph examination. The State argued that polygraph evidence is not admissible at sentencing absent an agreement by the parties, citing State v. Stevenson , 2002 S.D. 120, 652 N.W.2d 735. The circuit court agreed with the State and noted that because of the questionable reliability of polygraph examination results, this Court has consistently held that such evidence is not admissible in any proceeding and has only affirmed the admission of such evidence where there was a stipulation or agreement between the parties. The court therefore ruled that the evidence of Banks's polygraph examination would not be admitted at his sentencing hearing.

[¶10.] Banks and Bryant were sentenced at a joint sentencing hearing at which the circuit court considered evidence of the crime committed relating to both defendants, as well as information regarding each defendant's history and background. The State asked for sentences consistent with the respective agreed-upon caps in each defendant's plea agreement. Banks, however, maintained that he was not the shooter and urged the circuit court to impose the same sentence for both defendants.

[¶11.] The circuit court began its remarks by explaining what must be considered when imposing a sentence, including the gravity of the offense in comparison to the harshness of the penalty, the character and history of the defendant, the defendant's rehabilitation prospects, any expressed remorse, an appropriate punishment, and deterrence. The court then acknowledged that the facts were not clear about what had happened in this case. Because there was no trial, the court noted its reliance on other sources of information, such as police reports, prior testimony, forensic evidence reports, and the additional information contained in the presentence investigation reports.

[¶12.] In describing the offense itself, the circuit court acknowledged the divergent stories of the two defendants. The court related the evidence implicating both Banks and Bryant and also commented on the evidence in the record which did or did not support each defendant's version of the events. Importantly, the court noted that regardless of the two versions, both men had pled guilty to manslaughter in the first degree—a killing of another human being with a dangerous weapon. See SDCL 22-16-15(3). The court further noted that "one who aids and abets this crime is equally culpable under the law of the State of South Dakota" and that "legally it does not matter who pulled the trigger."

[¶13.] In considering Banks's history, the court commented on his childhood during which he resided with his mother and moved frequently. The court noted Banks's early use of substances which included smoking marijuana every day since the age of fourteen and drinking alcohol several times a week. The court also noted that Banks had been suspended from school on a few occasions, but nevertheless obtained his GED.

[¶14.] Regarding rehabilitation, the court observed that Banks was only eighteen years old at the time of the crime but then noted his extensive juvenile history, which included intensive probation and placements with the Department of Corrections. The court further observed that previous rehabilitation efforts had not been effective given that Banks continued to commit crimes very similar to the one for which he was being sentenced. His criminal history, as noted by the court, included drug-related charges, curfew violations, intentional damage to property, theft, second-degree robbery, riot, and assault, and some of these crimes were committed while Banks was on probation. The court also noted that following the shooting of Bonhorst, Banks was charged with simple assault for violent acts against two different women, and according to testimony from Bryant, he and Banks committed another robbery immediately after their attempted robbery and shooting of Bonhorst. Additionally, the court mentioned that Banks had been the subject of many informal disciplinary reports as well as two major violations for fighting while in jail, and at the time of sentencing, Banks had pending federal charges involving the theft of firearms.

[¶15.] As for remorse, the court considered that Banks had pled guilty to the crime and expressed in court that he was remorseful, but just three days prior, Banks had joked while talking with his girlfriend by phone at the jail that instead of getting a tear drop tattoo in prison indicating that he had killed an individual, he should instead get a tattoo of a slice of pizza. The court concluded its remarks by noting the devastating impact this crime had on Bonhorst's family members and the fact that Bonhorst's shooting had impacted the entire community's ability to feel safe and secure.

[¶16.] Ultimately, the court sentenced Banks, consistent with his plea agreement, to eighty years in prison, with twenty years suspended. ¹ Banks appeals, raising the single issue of whether the circuit court erred by excluding his polygraph results from the sentencing hearing.

Analysis

[¶17.] In this appeal, Banks is not directly challenging his sentence per se. Instead, he challenges the circuit court's refusal to consider a particular type of evidence when determining his sentence. "[A] circuit court's ruling on the...