#23839-a-DG 

2007 SD 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT 

OF THE 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee, 

 v. 

RALPH BUCHHOLD, Defendant and Appellant. 

 

* * * * 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

HONORABLE JEFF W. DAVIS 

Judge 

* * * * 

LAWRENCE E. LONG 

Attorney General 

STEVEN R. BLAIR 

Assistant Attorney General 

Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff 

and appellee. 

BRIAN L. UTZMAN 

ALAN L. SMOOT 

Smoot & Utzman 

Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant 

and appellant. 

* * * * 

ARGUED AUGUST 30, 2006 

 OPINION FILED 01/31/07
-1- 

#23839 

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice 

[¶1.] Ralph Buchhold (Buchhold) was convicted by a jury of one count of 

second degree rape, six counts of third degree rape, and four counts of sexual 

contact with a child under the age of sixteen. He was sentenced to 25 years in the 

state penitentiary on the second degree rape count and 15 years on each of the third 

degree rape and sexual contact counts. The sentences are to be served 

consecutively. We affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURE 

[¶2.] A child, (hereinafter referred to as A.B.), was born to Ralph and 

Kathleen Buchhold on August 22, 1988. During the initial years of A.B.’s life, 

Buchhold was largely absent from the home. He served overseas as an active duty 

member of the United States Air Force. 

[¶3.] Buchhold was discharged from the Air Force on January 1, 1995. At 

that time he joined his family in Rapid City, South Dakota. During the next few 

years, A.B., who was seven when her father returned from the Air Force, enjoyed a 

fairly normal upbringing. The Buchholds welcomed a second daughter into their 

family in 1998. 

[¶4.] A.B.’s life began to change in 1999, after her eleventh birthday. 

During this time, A.B.’s father, Buchhold, began to make sexual advances towards 

her. This started when Buchhold came into A.B.’s room one day and began 

touching her in the breast area on the outside of her clothes. Although A.B. did not 

understand the inappropriateness of the act at this time, it made her 

uncomfortable. She attempted to slide away from Buchhold. Buchhold persisted 

and once again made inappropriate contact with A.B. on the outside of her clothes. 
#23839 

-2- 

This initial episode ended when Buchhold left A.B.’s room after she yelled at him 

and shoved him away. 

[¶5.] The first encounter was followed by another in A.B.’s bedroom where 

Buchhold placed his hands inside A.B.’s pants. Buchhold told A.B. at this time that 

she was made for his pleasure. This episode again ended when A.B. shoved 

Buchhold away. 

[¶6.] Following these initial episodes, A.B. told her mother, Kathleen, about 

what her father had been doing to her. Kathleen confronted Buchhold about the 

allegations, but came away from the meeting distrusting A.B. After this meeting, 

Buchhold told A.B. that if she would keep her mouth shut the sexual advances 

would not happen again. However, within a short period of time Buchhold’s 

behavior resumed and his sexual advances became more extreme. 

[¶7.] A.B. was still eleven years old the first time she was raped by her 

father. Buchhold ordered A.B. into his room where he removed A.B.’s clothes and 

forced her, kicking and crying, to have vaginal sex with him. A.B. continued to cry 

complaining about the pain that the penetration was causing her. Buchhold 

dismissed A.B.’s pleas and finally subdued her struggling by squeezing his hand 

around her throat until she ceased. 

[¶8.] Thus, began an ordeal for A.B. that lasted four years. During this 

period, Buchhold’s rape and sexual abuse of his daughter escalated to an almost 

daily occurrence. It was not until A.B. was 15 that she was able to overcome her 

fear and humiliation in order to report the abuse from Buchhold. On December 13, 

2003, a Rapid City police officer was dispatched to the Buchhold residence in 

response to a reported rape. 
#23839 

-3- 

 

[¶9.] On February 12, 2004, Buchhold was indicted by a Pennington County 

Grand Jury on one count of second degree rape, six counts of third degree rape and 

four counts of sexual contact with a minor. A warrant was immediately issued for 

Buchhold’s arrest. Aware that he was about to be arrested, Buchhold left South 

Dakota to do a “photo shoot.” He traveled to various places under an assumed 

name. A Canadian by birth, he tried to arrange the purchase of a home in Canada 

under the name Thomas Keyes. Before he reached Canada, however, he was 

apprehended in New Jersey on May 14, 2004.1 Buchhold made his initial 

appearance on all charges before a Pennington County Magistrate on June 24, 2004. 

His trial commenced on July 13, 2005. 

[¶10.] During the trial, A.B. testified to at least ten separate instances of 

rape or sexual contact perpetrated upon her by her father. In addition A.B. testified 

that from 1999 through 2003, like instances of rape and sexual contact escalated 

from a once or twice weekly occurrence to as frequent as every other day or almost 

daily. Dr. Lori Strong, a pediatrician specializing in the treatment of children who 

suffer sexual and other physical abuse, testified on direct examination by the State 

that a vaginal examination of A.B. revealed a hymenal irregularity. The doctor 

asserted that this irregularity could not have existed from birth and was not 

attributable to any sort of natural infirmity such as a urinary tract infection. In Dr. 

Strong’s opinion A.B.’s hymenal irregularity was due to a penetration injury. She 

stated that this kind of injury was consistent with someone experiencing a history 

of sexual abuse like that relayed by A.B. 

1. His jury was given the pattern “flight” instruction. 
#23839 

-4- 

[¶11.] Prior to trial, the State gave notice of its intent to elicit testimony 

about statements of a sexual nature allegedly made to other young women by 

Buchhold. The circuit court ruled that the statements would not be admissible 

since they were not similar to the charges Buchhold faced; thus, being unduly 

prejudicial and not evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, or absence 

of mistake or accident in relation to the charges. See SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)). 

[¶12.] During the trial, the State played a videotape of an interview of 

Buchhold conducted by Pennington County Sheriff’s Deputy, Misti Walker. Due to 

a redaction error the jury was allowed to hear a portion of the videotape that 

included the statement from Walker to Buchhold, “Her friends say that you make 

these sexual com—. . . .” Defense counsel moved for a mistrial contending that the 

intent of the court’s ruling at the Rule 404(b) hearing had been violated. The circuit 

court denied the motion on the ground that the fragmentary statement did not 

violate the intent of the Rule 404(b) ruling and thus was not unduly prejudicial to 

Buchhold’s ability to have a fair trial. 

[¶13.] Following the conclusion of the first day of the trial, Buchhold was 

escorted from the courtroom by a uniformed deputy sheriff. He was apparently 

placed in restraints in preparation for transport back to the Pennington County jail 

after leaving the courtroom. He was then taken by the deputy to await an elevator. 

Before Buchhold could board the elevator, four jurors, who had inadvertently been 

excused, saw him shackled under the supervision of the deputy. Though defense 

counsel did not ask for a mistrial, he did discuss the incident with the circuit court. 

The circuit court, aware of the incident, noted that the jurors had immediately 
#23839 

-5- 

returned to the courtroom without any resulting effect. Considering there to be no 

prejudicial consequence to Buchhold, the judge dismissed the incident. 

[¶14.] Finally, during closing arguments, the state’s attorney recalled for the 

jury the testimony of Dr. Strong. He specifically recounted the doctor’s discussion 

about the hymenal irregularity. The state’s attorney reiterated Dr. Strong’s 

contention that the irregularity was consistent with what one might find in a child 

who had been the victim of prolonged sexual abuse. He concluded this discussion by 

stating that it was another piece of the puzzle and convincing evidence beyond a 

reasonable doubt that rape had occurred. Defense counsel had no objection to the 

state’s attorney’s statement. 

[¶15.] Buchhold was found guilty on all eleven counts on July 14, 2005. On 

September 6, 2005, he was given the maximum sentence on all counts to be served 

consecutively; thus, totaling 175 years. 

[¶16.] On appeal, Buchhold raises six issues: 

1. Whether Buchhold was properly convicted of and sentenced on 

the mutually exclusive crimes of third degree rape and sexual 

contact with a minor under the age of sixteen. 

2. Whether sentencing Buchhold to the maximum allowable on 

each count, to be served consecutively, constitutes cruel and 

unusual punishment. 

3. Whether the statutory 180-day rule was violated. 

4. Whether the circuit court erred when it failed to grant 

Buchhold’s motion for a mistrial when the State failed to redact 

portions of a videotape that was shown to the jury. 

5. Whether Buchhold’s ability to have a fair trial was unduly 

prejudiced when members of the jury saw him in restraints 

while in the custody of a sheriff’s deputy. 

6. Whether the state’s attorney committed prosecutorial 

misconduct when referencing expert testimony during closing 

arguments. 
#23839 

-6- 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

[¶17.] “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on review, the question 

presented is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the fact 

finder, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. 

Lewandowski, 463 NW2d 341, 343-44 (SD 1990). This Court reviews sentencing 

within statutory limits under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. McKinney, 

2005 SD 73, ¶10, 699 NW2d 471, 476 (citing State v. Goodroad, 1997 SD 46, ¶40, 

563 NW2d 126, 135 (citing State v. Anderson, 1996 SD 46, ¶30, 546 NW2d 395, 

402)). “We give ‘great deference to sentencing decisions made by trial courts.’ ” 

State v. Garber, 2004 SD 2, ¶13, 674 NW2d 320, 323 (quoting State v. Milk, 2000 

SD 28, ¶10, 607 NW2d 14, 17 (citing State v. Gehrke, 491 NW2d 421, 422 (SD 

1992))). However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment 

grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out 

in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17, 577 NW2d 575, 580. “[T]his Court reviews ‘the 

determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what 

constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.’ ” State v. Cottrill, 2003 

SD 38, ¶6, 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks, 1999 SD 115, ¶5, 600 

NW2d 550, 553). “The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard.” State v. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶42, 693 NW2d 685, 699 (citing 

State v. Ball, 2004 SD 9, ¶16, 675 NW2d 192, 197). Where an issue has not been 

preserved by objection at trial, this Court’s review is limited to consideration of 

whether the circuit court committed plain error. State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶7, 

587 NW2d 439, 443 (citing State v. Satter, 1996 SD 9, ¶11, 543 NW2d 249, 251). 
#23839 

-7- 

 

ANALYSIS AND DECISION 

[¶18.] 1. Whether Buchhold was properly convicted of and 

sentenced on the mutually exclusive crimes of third 

degree rape and sexual contact with a minor under the 

age of sixteen. 

[¶19.] Buchhold argues that there is not sufficient evidence to support a 

finding of guilt on the eleven separate counts for which he was convicted. 

Specifically, Buchhold contends the only evidence supporting the multiple counts 

was “the very general” and “uncorroborated” testimony of A.B. Buchhold was 

convicted of four counts of sexual contact with a minor. He asserts that A.B.’s 

testimony only supports two counts of sexual contact. He then concludes the only 

basis under which more counts could be rationalized would be to assume sexual 

contact occurred coincident with incidences of rape. Buchhold asserts that our 

legislature did not intend for sexual contact and rape crimes to be cumulative. 

[¶20.] Buchhold reasons that under SDCL 22-22-7,2 sexual contact with a 

child under the age of sixteen is a mutually exclusive offense from that of rape 

under SDCL 22-22-1.3 Buchhold points to the usage of the term “sexual contact” in 

 (continued . . .) 

2. SDCL 22-22-7 provides in part: “Any person, sixteen years of age or older, 

who knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person, other than 

that person’s spouse if the other person is under the age of sixteen years is 

guilty of a Class 3 felony. . . .” 

3. At the time of Buchhold’s offenses, SDCL 22-22-1(2004) provided in part: 

“Rape is an act of sexual penetration accomplished with any person under 

any of the following circumstances: 

 

 . . . 

(2) Through the use of force, coercion, or threats of immediate and 

great bodily harm against the victim or other persons within the 
#23839 

-8- 

_________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

SDCL 22-22-7 and its definition under SDCL 22-22-7.1,4 as the basis for the mutual 

exclusivity of “rape” and “sexual contact” crimes as intended by our legislature. 

[¶21.] Buchhold cites a litany of cases decided by this Court that resulted in 

the reversal of convictions for mutually exclusive offenses based on the same set of 

facts. See State v. Purovich, 2001 SD 96, 632 NW2d 12; State v. Dillion, 2001 SD 

97, 632 NW2d 37 (holding that convictions for rape and pedophilia based on one act 

violated the prohibition against double jeopardy where the legislature did not 

specifically intend for multiple punishments for the same conduct); Interest of C.H., 

2001 SD 119, 634 NW2d 309 (vacating two convictions for sexual contact incidental 

to rape because the legislature did not intend for cumulative punishments for one 

act of sexual penetration); State v. Brammer, 304 NW2d 111 (SD 1981) (holding 

that convictions for the mutually exclusive crimes of rape and sexual contact were 

substantially prejudicial to the defendant under the plain error rule). 

[¶22.] Buchhold failed to seek dismissal at trial of any of the counts under 

that he now claims to have been improperly charged. We must therefore consider 

victim’s presence, accompanied by apparent power of execution; 

or 

. . . 

(6) If persons who are not legally married and who are within 

degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are by the laws 

of this state declared void pursuant to § 25-1-6, which is also 

defined as incest; . . .” 

4. At the time of Buchhold’s offenses, SDCL 22-22-7.1 (2004) provided in part: 

“As used in this chapter, the term, sexual contact, means any touching, not 

amounting to rape, . . . of the breasts of a female or the genitalia or anus of 

any person with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either 

party. . . .”
#23839 

-9- 

this issue from the perspective of whether the circuit court committed plain error in 

entering convictions on all charges. See Satter, 1996 SD 9, ¶11, 543 NW2d at 251. 

“Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and 

only then may this Court exercise its discretion to notice the error if (4) it ‘seriously 

affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” 

Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶8, 587 NW2d at 443 (citation omitted). 

[¶23.] A.B. testified that the first time Buchhold came to her room and 

touched her in a sexual manner, she pushed him away. A.B. then stated that her 

father initiated a second sexual contact during this incident. A.B. later testified 

that the next time A.B. made sexual advances, he placed his hands inside her 

pants. This constitutes three acts of sexual contact rather than the two that 

Buchhold claims. 

[¶24.] Buchhold also fails to address the sheer magnitude of the number of 

sexual acts he committed against A.B. A.B. testified that when her father started 

sexually abusing her it was with a frequency of once or twice a week, “not that 

often.” Later it progressed to two or three times a week and by the time she was in 

the eighth grade it was occurring somewhere between every other day and every 

day. A.B. asserts that the total number of times she was sexually abused by her 

father were too numerous for her to count. 

[¶25.] This Court must accept the evidence, and the most favorable 

inferences that can be drawn from it, which will sustain a verdict. State v. 

Buchholz, 1999 SD 110, ¶33, 598 NW2d 899, 905 (citation omitted). This Court will 
#23839 

-10- 

not pass on the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence in determining its 

sufficiency. Id. (citation omitted). 

[¶26.] Clearly, the jury considered A.B.’s testimony to be credible. It is 

entirely possible that given the hundreds of acts of sexual abuse perpetrated upon 

A.B. by her father, the jury may have inferred that at least one additional count of 

sexual contact existed. Thus, the circuit court could not be held to be in error for 

accepting the jury’s finding of fact as to the sufficiency of evidence supporting 

eleven separate counts. 

[¶27.] 2. Whether sentencing Buchhold to the maximum allowable 

 on each count, to be served consecutively, constitutes 

 cruel and unusual punishment. 

[¶28.] Buchhold received the maximum available sentence on all eleven 

counts for which he was convicted; thus, totaling 175 years. He will not be eligible 

for parole until he has served half of his sentence or 871⁄2 years. Buchhold was 50 

years old when sentenced. He therefore argues that he has received a de facto life 

sentence and otherwise cruel and unusual punishment given the circumstances in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

[¶29.] In Bonner, we set out the proportionality test used by this Court to 

review a defendant’s challenge to a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds. 

To assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine 

whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. To 

accomplish this, we consider the conduct involved, and any 

relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature 

and the sentencing court. If these circumstances fail to suggest 

gross disproportionality, our review ends. 

Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17, 577 NW2d at 580 (citing Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 US 

957, 1000, 111 SCt 2680, 2704, 115 LEd2d 836, 868 (1991)). Only when a sentence 
#23839 

-11- 

appears grossly disproportional will this Court conduct an inter/intra-jurisdictional 

sentencing analysis or assess other factors. Id. ¶21 (citing Harmelin, 501 US at 

1000, 111 SCt at 2704, 115 LEd2d at 868). 

[¶30.] In order to apply the test set out in Bonner to this case, we must first 

determine if the issue of gross disproportionality is confined to the sentences 

imposed for each individual conviction or whether it extends to the consecutive 

sentencing scheme. The United States Supreme Court has not provided a clear 

answer to this question. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 US 63, 72, 123 SCt 1166, 1173, 

155 LEd2d 144 (2003). However, we take note of the statement pertaining to this 

issue from the early case of O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 US 323, 12 SCt 693, 36 LEd 450 

(1892). Though not central to the holding in that case, the Court recognized that 

the length of a defendant’s sentence may be attributable to the number of crimes 

committed which of itself does not raise proportionality concerns: 

The punishment imposed by statute for the offence with which 

the respondent, O’Neil, is charged, cannot be said to be excessive 

or oppressive. If he has subjected himself to a severe penalty, 

it is simply because he has committed a great many such 

offences. It would be scarcely competent for a person to assail 

the constitutionality of the statute prescribing a punishment 

for burglary, on the ground that he had committed so many 

burglaries that, if punishment for each were inflicting on him, 

he might be kept in prison for life. The mere fact that 

cumulative punishments may be imposed for distinct offences 

in the same prosecution is not material upon this question.

Id. at 331, 12 SCt at 696-97, 36 LEd 450. 

[¶31.] Several lower courts have dealt with this issue and concluded that the 

gross disproportionality review applies to the sentence imposed for the individual 

crimes rather than the consecutive aggregate. In United States v. Aiello, 864 F2d 

257, 265 (2dCir 1988), the court also took notice of the reasoning from O’Neal, 
#23839 

-12- 

holding that a proportionality analysis did not apply to a defendant’s life sentence 

without parole plus 140 consecutive years because the analysis properly focuses on 

the sentence applied for each specific crime and not cumulative sentencing. In 

supporting the same proposition, the court in United States v. Schell, 692 F2d 672, 

675 (10thCir 1982) reasoned that concluding otherwise would mean that any 

sentence regardless of length could be deemed cruel and unusual punishment when 

imposed on a defendant already serving lengthy sentences for prior convictions. 

Similarly, the court in Person v. Ramos, 237 F3d 881, 886 (7thCir 2001) predicted 

the absurd result of prisoners that would generate colorable Eighth Amendment 

claims by simply committing more crimes. 

[¶32.] Other jurisdictions have also considered the issue of proportionality 

where consecutive sentencing is involved. The Arizona Supreme Court has 

concluded that defendant’s have no constitutional right to concurrent sentencing for 

multiple separate crimes. State v. Jonas, 792 P2d 705, 712 (Ariz 1990) (citations 

omitted). Recently, the Arizona court concluded that even when consecutive 

sentences exceed life expectancy, it cannot be argued that a sentence that is not 

alone grossly disproportional becomes so because it is lengthy in aggregate with 

other sentences. State v. Berger, 134 P3d 378, 384 (Ariz 2006) (citation omitted). 

In Close v. People, 48 P3d 528, 540 (Colo 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court held 

that cumulative sentences are not reviewable in aggregate. In State v. August, 589 

NW2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999), the Iowa Supreme Court noted that an Eighth 

Amendment claim does not arise where a defendant who commits multiple crimes is 

punished more severely than a defendant who commits one. 
#23839 

-13- 

[¶33.] We conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentencing is a 

discretionary matter for the sentencing court in line with SDCL 22-6-6.1.5 In State 

v. Blair, we justified in part the circuit court’s imposition of five consecutive eight 

year terms against the defendant by reasoning that each of the five counts was 

individual and specific to one of his five victims. 2006 SD 75, ¶66, 721 NW2d 55, 

72. The same rationale applies to this case because even though A.B. was the only 

victim of Buchhold’s crimes, each instance of sexual abuse was a separate offense 

committed at different times. 

[¶34.] Defense counsel argues that in imposing sentence the circuit court 

“disregarded” the psychosexual evaluator’s conclusions that Buchhold does not have 

“a chronic objectively sexual interest in young children” or an “objectively measured 

interest in sexual violence.” According to the evaluator, Buchhold’s test scores 

suggested that he is a “low risk for recidivism.” Nonetheless, it must be noted that 

the evaluator’s entire assessment was prefaced with the comment that Buchhold’s 

 

5. At the time of Buchhold’s conviction SDCL 22-6-6.1 (2004) provided: 

If a defendant has been convicted of two or more offenses, regardless of when 

the offenses were committed or when the judgment or sentence was entered, 

the judgment or sentence may be that the imprisonment on any of the 

offenses or convictions may run concurrently or consecutively at the 

discretion of the court.
#23839 

-14- 

“continued denial is viewed as an indicator of his failure to take responsibility for 

his sexual behavior problems and a lack of forthrightness on this assessment.” 

Thus, the test scores showing Buchhold to be a low risk are of dubious worth. 

[¶35.] During the sentencing hearing, the circuit court stated that in addition 

to the evidence presented at trial, it considered the pre-sentence investigation and 

psychosexual evaluation. This evaluation revealed that Buchhold is in “deep 

denial” of the molestation he perpetrated against A.B. Instead of accepting 

responsibility for his acts, Buchhold depicted his daughter as mentally unstable and 

a habitual liar. As the trial court noted, his continued denial left him unamenable 

to treatment or the possibility of rehabilitation: “It would appear to me, sir, based 

on the entire record before me, that there is no prospect of rehabilitation in the 

foreseeable future in your particular instance and that the only way to protect 

society is to remove you from society.” Thus, in total we conclude the circuit court 

acted within its discretion by sentencing Buchhold to eleven consecutive sentences. 

[¶36.] The next step in our analysis is to determine whether the individual 

sentences are grossly disproportionate. The first step in establishing whether a 

threshold showing of gross disproportionality in sentencing exists is to determine 

whether the legislature had a rational basis to conclude the statutory sentencing 

guidelines would further the objectives of the State’s criminal justice system. See 

Ewing v. California, 538 US 11, 28, 123 SCt 1179, 1189, 155 LEd2d 108 (2003). We 

then decide whether a defendant’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime 

by determining whether that sentence furthers those objectives the legislature 

sought to advance. Id. at 29-30, 123 SCt at 1190, 155 LEd2d 108. 
#23839 

-15- 

[¶37.] The legislature has determined that sex crimes against children are a 

serious public concern and should be punished severely. State v. Guthmiller, 2003 

SD 83, ¶48, 667 NW2d 295, 311. At the time Buchhold was charged, second degree 

rape carried a maximum 25-year sentence while the crimes of third degree rape and 

sexual contact each carried a maximum sentence of 15 years. The statutory 

sentencing structure established for these crimes can reasonably be construed to 

further the State’s public policy of deterrence through correction and retribution. 

See Ewing, 538 US at 28, 123 SCt at 1189, 155 LEd2d 108; Harmelin, 501 US at 

1003, 111 SCt at 2706, 115 LEd2d 836 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and 

concurring in the judgment) (citations omitted). 

[¶38.] The legislature’s establishment of this sentencing structure, providing 

a range of punishment up to the statutory maximum, reveals its intent to invest 

sentencing courts with the discretion to hand down harsher sentences for those 

committing the most egregious examples of the crimes. See Guthmiller, 2003 SD 

83, ¶44, 667 NW2d at 309; Weems v. United States, 217 US 349, 367, 30 SCt. 544, 

549, 54 LEd 793, 798. This case illustrates an example of the kind of egregious 

violation justifying imposition of the maximum sentence available under the 

statutes. 

[¶39.] Buchhold sexually violated his daughter through force and coercion 

constituting second degree rape, third degree rape, and sexual contact with a child. 

A.B.’s extended exposure to Buchhold’s sexual abuse has all but destroyed her 

family life. She no longer has any apparent emotional feeling for either of her 
#23839 

-16- 

parents. She has been separated from two younger sisters for whom she still feels 

great emotional attachment. 

[¶40.] Buchhold’s intentional conduct occurred repeatedly over a period of 

approximately four years and likely has resulted in irreparable emotional harm to 

A.B. We can reasonably conclude that imposition of the maximum sentence in this 

case for convictions on the individual counts advances, through correction and 

retribution, the State’s interest in deterring such crimes. We therefore conclude in 

this case that imposition of the maximum sentence for the individual charges is not

grossly disproportional and our review of this issue is complete. 

[¶41.] 3. Whether the statutory 180-day rule was violated. 

[¶42.] Buchhold argues that he is entitled to a dismissal with prejudice on all 

counts because the time between his initial appearance and trial exceeded the 

statutory 180-day period provided under SDCL 23A-44-5.1.6 The following is a 

chronology of the period between Buchhold’s initial appearance and trial: 

1. June 24, 2004: Buchhold makes his initial appearance. 

2. June 30, 2004: Arraignment. 

 

6. SDCL 23A-44-5.1 provides in part: 

(1) Every person indicted, . . . for any offense shall be brought to trial 

within one hundred eighty days, and such time shall be computed 

as provided in this section. 

(2) Such one-hundred-eighty-day period shall commence to run from the 

date the defendant has first appeared before a judicial officer on an 

indictment,. . . 

. . . 

(5) If a defendant is not brought to trial before the running of the time for 

trial, as extended by excluded periods, the defendant shall be entitled 

to a dismissal with prejudice of the offense charged and any other 

offense required by law to be joined with the offense charged.
#23839 

-17- 

3. July 7, 2004: Buchhold files a request with circuit court for 

recusal of the Honorable Mertin B. Tice (including removal 

affidavit attached). 

4. July 19, 2004: Status hearing (rescheduled do to change of 

presiding judge). 

5. July 26, 2004: Motions hearing. 

6. August 2, 2004: Status hearing. 

7. September 13, 2004: Motions hearing. Buchhold makes oral 

motion to release seized property. 

8. September 14, 2004: Motion by original trial counsel to 

 withdraw because Buchhold retained new counsel. 

9. September 17, 2004: Order granting September 14, 2004 

motion. 

10. October 5, 2004: Order granting September 13, 2004 motion. 

11. December 15, 2004: Original trial date. Cancelled. New trial 

date scheduled for April 20, 2005. 

 

12. January 10, 2005: Status hearing. 

13. January 21, 2005: Buchhold files 19 pretrial motions. These 

motions include a request for order permitting Buchhold to be 

transported for a medical examination. In addition, motions 

include request for production of records, medical reports, 

disclosure of State’s Rule 404(b) evidence, State’s witness list 

and pretrial discovery. 

14. January 31, 2005: Motions hearing. 

15. February 18, 2005: State files Rule 404(b) notice. 

16. February 28, 2005: Motions hearing. 

17. March 7, 2005: Status hearing. 

18. March 7, 2005: Circuit court order that all Department of Social 

Services records, pertaining to A.B. requested by Buchhold, be 

sent to the circuit court for in-camera review. 

19. March 21, 2005: Status hearing. 
#23839 

-18- 

20. April 6, 2005: Circuit court releases memorandum stating that 

in-camera records have been reviewed and will be released to 

the parties. 

21. April 6, 2005: Hearing is held to consider State’s Rule 404(b) 

notice. 

22. April 20, 2005: Buchhold’s second trial date. Trial is continued 

due to significant health problems of defense counsel. 

23. May 11, 2005: State asks for continuance of June 8, 2005 trial 

date due to unavailability of State’s expert, Dr. Strong. 

24. May 13, 2005: Circuit court grants continuance and reschedules 

trial for July 13, 2005. 

25. July 7, 2005: Circuit court orders that Buchhold be transported 

for medical examination. 

26. July 13, 2005: Buchhold’s trial commences. 

 

[¶43.] Three hundred and eighty-five days passed between Buchhold’s June 

24, 2004 initial appearance and commencement of trial on July 13, 2005. However, 

SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4) provides for conditions under which the 180-day clock shall be 

tolled. Included in these conditions are continuances granted at the request or with 

the consent of the defendant or defense counsel so long as there is a written order 

filed by the court. SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(b). 

[¶44.] Buchhold argues that defense counsel’s request for continuance of the 

April 20, 2005 trial date should not be excluded from the 180-day computation 

because there was no written order filed by the circuit court. However, when the 

trial opened, defense counsel addressed the 180-day issue. He specifically made 

reference to his request for continuance of the April 20 trial date due to his serious 

health problems that required hospitalization. Defense counsel also made reference 

to the many motions and status hearings he had requested. In total, defense 
#23839 

-19- 

counsel did not believe that given the number of defense initiated delays there was 

any justification for dismissal under the 180-day rule. The circuit court concurred 

with defense counsel’s assessment of the merits of a motion for dismissal based on a 

180-day rule violation stating on the record that the proceedings are within the 

requirements of the statute. 

[¶45.] Additionally, this Court has held, “ ‘[W]here a defendant assents to a 

period of delay and later attempts to take advantage of it, courts should be loathe to 

find a violation of an accused’s speedy trial rights.’ ” Cottrill, 2003 SD 38, ¶11, 660 

NW2d at 630 (quoting Hays v. Weber, 2002 SD 59, ¶23, 645 NW2d 591, 599 

(quoting State v. Beynon, 484 NW2d 898, 903 (SD 1992))). There is nothing in the 

record indicating that Buchhold objected or failed to consent to the April 20 

continuance. Thus, the 84-day period between the second trial date on April 20, 

2005, and the actual trial, commenced on July 13, 2005, should be excluded. 

[¶46.] Further, all but six days of this period are excluded within a 167-day 

period between a pretrial motion and its final disposition. Periods between a 

pretrial motion and its final disposition are excluded from the 180-day computation. 

SDCL 23A-44-5.1(4)(a). The excluded 167-day period began on January 21, 2005, 

when Buchhold filed his motion for an order permitting transportation for a medical 

examination. The excluded period ends when the circuit court entered an order on 

July 7, 2005, granting Buchhold’s motion. When added to the remaining six days 

resulting from the excluded period between trial dates, there is a total of 173 days 

of excluded time between January 21, 2005, and the trial date on July 13, 2005. 
#23839 

-20- 

[¶47.] Buchhold also made a pretrial motion on September 13, 2004, for the 

release of confiscated property. The circuit court granted this motion on October 5, 

2004. The excluded time between these dates is 22 days. In addition, on July 7, 

2004, original defense counsel filed for recusal of the first judge assigned to preside 

over the case. The motion was granted and resulted in delay of a status hearing to 

July 19, 2004, for an additional 12 days excluded. Finally, there were two status 

hearings in 2004 that would result in at least one day of excluded time for each 

hearing. 

[¶48.] The sum of excluded days comes to 209. The time between Buchhold’s 

initial appearance and trial less excluded days is 176. Since this falls within the 

statutory provisions, there is no basis for dismissal on this issue. 

[¶49.] 4. Whether the circuit court erred when it failed to grant 

 Buchhold’s motion for a mistrial when the State failed to 

 redact portions of a videotape that was shown to the 

 jury. 

[¶50.] Buchhold argues that the a fragmentary statement left unredacted in 

a videotape interview of him by Deputy Walker violated the intent of the circuit 

court’s April 6, 2005 ruling on the State’s Rule 404(b) notice. He contends that he 

was unduly prejudiced since the jury heard this fragmentary statement, which was 

related to other sexual comments that he allegedly made to friends of A.B. 

Trial courts have considerable discretion not only in granting or 

denying a mistrial, but also in determining the prejudicial effect 

of a witness’ statements. Only when this discretion is clearly 

abused will this court overturn the trial court’s decision.

State v. Anderson, 1996 SD 46, ¶21, 546 NW2d 395, 401 (citations omitted). 

[¶51.] The circuit court did acknowledge the State’s redaction error. 

However, it went on to point out that the kind of statements it intended to bar could 
#23839 

-21- 

be found in a transcript of the unedited videotape and that these statements were 

not heard on the edited version. The circuit court denied the motion because the 

intent of the prior Rule 404(b) ruling barring such statements had not been 

compromised. The record does not indicate the circuit court clearly abused its 

discretion. Therefore, we will not overturn the circuit court’s decision on Buchhold’s 

motion. 

[¶52.] 5. Whether Buchhold’s ability to have a fair trial was 

unduly prejudiced when members of the jury saw him in 

restraints while in the custody of a sheriff’s deputy. 

[¶53.] Buchhold argues that when four jurors saw him in restraints, under 

the supervision of a deputy sheriff while waiting for an elevator, his presumption of 

innocence was compromised. Buchhold did not move for mistrial at the time. 

However, he now contends that a mistrial is required due to plain error. 

[¶54.] Buchhold cites State v. Mollman, 2003 SD 150, ¶24, 674 NW2d 22, 29 

for the proposition that courts must guard against prejudice arising when a 

defendant is seen before a jury under restraint or in prison garb. However, this 

Court in Mollman noted: “brief, inadvertent meetings between jurors and a 

shackled defendant are insufficient to show prejudice.” Id. ¶27 (citing Harrell v. 

Israel, 672 F2d 632, 637 (7thCir 1982) (citing United States v. Figueroa-Espinoza,

454 F2d 590 (9thCir 1972); United States v. Leach, 429 F2d 956 (8thCir 1970), cert. 

denied, 402 US 986, 91 SCt 1675, 29 LEd2d 151 (1971); Hardin v. United States,

324 F2d 553 (5thCir 1963))). 

[¶55.] For Buchhold to now show that there was reversible error on this 

issue, he must show that there exists (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting 
#23839 

-22- 

substantial rights such that this Court may exercise its discretion to notice the 

error if (4) it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶8, 587 NW2d at 443 (citation omitted). 

[¶56.] The record shows that the inadvertent incident occurred following the 

first day’s trial proceedings when Buchhold was awaiting transport back to the 

Pennington County jail. When defense counsel brought the matter to the attention 

of the circuit court, he apparently doubted the existence of undue prejudice since he 

elected not to file a motion for mistrial. Nevertheless, the circuit court was aware of 

the incident and noted that the four jurors who had seen Buchhold promptly 

returned to the courtroom. The circuit court stated that it did not appear that the 

incident caused any concern for the jurors. Buchhold cannot show that there was 

any resultant prejudice and therefore cannot establish there was plain error. 

[¶57.] 6. Whether the state’s attorney committed prosecutorial 

misconduct when referencing expert testimony during 

closing arguments. [¶58.] Buchhold argues that the state’s attorney made improper statements 

during closing arguments that substantially prejudiced his ability to have a fair 

trail. Buchhold did not object to the statements at the time. However, he contends 

that this Court adopted a new standard in State v. Ball, 2004 SD 9, 675 NW2d 192 

under which this Court can review prosecutorial misconduct de novo 

notwithstanding the absence of objection at trial. 

[¶59.] Buchhold misinterprets Ball. Like the instant case, the defendant in 

Ball alleged that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing 

arguments amounting to prosecutorial misconduct. Id. ¶12. However, unlike the 

instant case where nothing that could be construed as an objection was offered, in 
#23839 

-23- 

Ball this Court concluded that the defendant preserved an objection during an offthe-record discussion because both the State and the defendant considered it as 

such in their briefs. Id. ¶14 n3. We therefore must consider this issue from the 

perspective whether the prosecutor’s statements constituted plain error. 

[¶60.] The state’s attorney essentially restated the findings of Dr. Strong. He 

stated that A.B. had a penetrating injury that could not have occurred naturally nor 

existed from birth. He also stated that there was “no report of any other incident 

that happened to [A.B.].” 

[¶61.] Buchhold contends that the state’s attorney’s statements were 

improper because the nature of A.B.’s injury was categorized as inconclusive and 

that a friend of A.B.’s had testified that A.B. told her she had had sex with two boys 

in 2003. During Dr. Strong’s testimony, she stated that although the injury was not 

diagnostic of sexual abuse on its own, it was indicative of what could be found in a 

child relaying a history like that of A.B. 

[¶62.] Whether the jury did or did not conclude that A.B. had sex with boys 

prior to the time the rape allegations were made against her father, it is possible it 

concluded that such acts were not “incidents that happened to A.B.” The state’s 

attorney merely concluded the penetrating injury was a piece of the puzzle that 

showed convincingly beyond a reasonable doubt that there was rape. These 

statements do not rise to the level where they become unduly prejudicial. We 

therefore find no plain error related to this issue that would justifying reversal. 

[¶63.] Since we find no basis for reversal on any of the issues raised by 

Buchhold, we affirm. 
#23839 

-24- 

[¶64.] KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur. 

[¶65.] SABERS, Justice, dissents. 

[¶66.] SABERS, Justice (dissenting). 

[¶67.] This fifty-year-old man received a sentence of 175 years. This sentence 

constitutes six life sentences when considering Buchhold’s age and statistical life 

expectancy. Even if we consider Buchhold will be eligible for parole in half time 

served, this sentence effectively amounts to three life sentences.7 Sentencing him 

to “de facto” life sentences “eliminates forever any opportunity for hope, selfimprovement, and rehabilitation.” State v. Pasek, 2004 SD 132, ¶43, 691 NW2d 

301, 313 (Sabers, J., dissenting). This sentence is harsh, excessive, grossly 

disproportionate and wasteful. All this sentence guarantees is that Buchhold will 

be housed, fed, medically treated and buried at the State’s expense when he dies in 

the South Dakota State Penitentiary. I dissent because we should remand this case 

to impose a “meaningful less than life sentence.” Id. ¶49. 

[¶68.] 1. De facto life sentences 

[¶69.] There must be some hope of rehabilitation. While I do not condone 

Buchhold’s actions, nor minimize their magnitude, some hope should exist in 

sentencing. 

A life sentence should only be imposed when a trial court 

“can determine from the facts of the principal offense and 

the previous convictions that rehabilitation is so unlikely 

as to be removed from consideration in sentencing; that 

 

7. See supra ¶28. 
#23839 

-25- 

the interests of society demand that the convict be kept 

off the streets for the rest of his life . . . .” 

Id. ¶44 (quoting State v. Pulfrey, 1996 SD 54, ¶18, 548 NW2d 34, 38). Ultimately, 

we must keep the goals of sentencing in mind and hold firmly to the ideal that a 

sentence cannot “constitute excessive retribution.” Id. Buchhold has received three 

life sentences based on his present age and his average life expectancy. He will not 

be eligible for parole for 87 and 1⁄2 years. 

[¶70.] Even the majority opinion points out the “statutory sentencing 

structure established for these crimes can reasonably be construed to further the 

State’s public policy of deterrence through correction and retribution.” Supra ¶37

(emphasis added) (citing Ewing v. California, 538 US 11, 28, 123 SCt 1179, 1189, 

155 LEd2d 108 (2003); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 US 957, 1003, 11 SCt 2680, 2706, 

115 LEd2d 836 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the 

judgment)). Giving a fifty-year-old man a 175-year sentence cannot further the 

State’s policy of deterrence through correction. Leaving Buchhold in the 

penitentiary without the possibility of parole will never provide correction. It 

constitutes excessive retribution. 

[¶71.] Buchhold’s criminal record reveals no prior instances or allegations of 

sexual misconduct. “[T]he lack of a prior felony conviction or other serious offense 

aids our decision and ‘certainly bears on the question of gross disproportionality.’” 

State v. Blair, 2006 SD 75, ¶96, 721 NW2d 55, 79 (Sabers, J., dissenting) (quoting 

State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶23, 577 NW2d 575, 581-82). His presentence report 
#23839 

-26- 

 

indicated he still maintains his innocence8 and recommends he be sentenced “for a 

substantial period of time.” However, his sentence of 175 years is much longer than 

“a substantial period of time.” It is effectively three life sentences without the 

possibility of parole and constitutes excessive retribution. This is the type of 

excessive punishment that “generate[s] disrespect for the law.” Id. ¶82, 

(Konenkamp, J., concurring in result). 

[¶72.] In sentencing, the court should “examine a defendant’s ‘general moral 

character, mentality, habits, social environment, tendencies, age, aversion or 

inclination to commit crime, life, family, occupation, and previous criminal record.’ 

The sentencing court should also consider rehabilitation prospects.” State v. 

Lemley, 1996 SD 91, ¶12, 552 NW2d 409, 412 (internal citations omitted). What 

rehabilitation prospects can a man have when there is no incentive to rehabilitate? 

“There should generally be a light at the end of the tunnel for any human no matter 

how bad he appears or how bad his past conduct reflects he is.” Ganrude v. Weber, 

2000 SD 96, ¶29, 614 NW2d 807, 813 (Amundson, J., dissenting). We should 

8. When reading the sentencing transcript, it appears that Buchhold’s 

maintained innocence weighed heavily in the court’s conclusion that 

Buchhold was not a candidate for rehabilitation and its decision to sentence 

him to 175 years. The trial judge specifically quoted Dr. Gans who explained 

he had specific recommendations to treat Buchhold, “[i]f and when Ralph 

becomes amenable to treatment through the relinquishment of denial.” The 

majority opinion points out Buchhold is in “deep denial” and not amenable “to 

treatment or the possibility of rehabilitation.” Supra ¶34-35. Buchhold may 

never relinquish denial. However, that should be the basis of denying parole. 

It should not be the basis to deny him even the opportunity for parole. 

Buchhold at some point may atone for his crimes and may be rehabilitated. 

Without even a chance of parole, it leaves Buchhold without a chance of ever 

having hope of rehabilitating. 
#23839 

-27- 

impose a meaningful sentence of less than life to keep that light on and the hope 

going. 

[¶73.] As Justice Amundson stated, 

It seems as though the result of this sentence is to cast this 

individual into the human waste dump and let him languish 

there until he finally totally decomposes and has gasped his last 

breath. I cannot agree that this should be the severity of the 

sentence and would hold that a light should remain on at the 

end of the tunnel for this individual. 

Id. Again, I do not condone Buchhold’s actions, but I cannot condemn him to a life 

without hope. For this reason, we should vacate these “de facto” life sentences and 

remand to require the judge to impose a sentence that does not last long beyond the 

time Buchhold has “gasped his last breath.” 

[¶74.] 2. Gross Disproportionality 

[¶75.] I also disagree with the majority opinion’s gross disproportionality 

analysis. When conducting gross disproportionality review, the review should 

entail the aggregate sentence, not the individual sentence on each count. The 

majority opinion appears to adopt the position advanced in the Blair concurrence as 

the method to conduct a gross disproportionality review when the defendant 

received consecutive sentences. 2006 SD 75, ¶73, 721 NW2d at 73 (Konenkamp, J., 

concurring in result). Utilization of this method creates a situation where no 

sentence could really ever appear to be grossly disproportionate. I reiterate the 

position advanced in the Blair dissent, “[w]hether we measure one grain of sand or 

one tree at a time, a desert remains a desert and a forest remains a forest.” Id.

¶109 n33 (Sabers, J., dissenting). Even the Blair concurrence concedes there may 

be a time when the sentences should be reviewed in the aggregate, as opposed to 
#23839 

-28- 

 

individually. Id. ¶78 n22 (Konenkamp, J., concurring in result). Specifically, the 

Blair concurrence provided it may be appropriate to view the sentences in the 

aggregate when the “consecutive sentences amount[ ] to life in prison.” Id. This is 

the type of sentence that should be reviewed in the aggregate. Buchhold received 

ten fifteen-year sentences and one twenty-five year sentence, all to be served 

consecutively. This amounts to a 175-year sentence, which is effectively three life 

sentences without the possibility of parole.9 

[¶76.] Looking at each individual count shows Buchhold received sentences 

each within the statutory maximum. While this might be initially reassuring, it 

demonstrates a concern when reviewing the counts in isolation. The problem is 

that the statutes do not allow a life sentence for Buchhold’s charged crimes.10 The 

most severe crime he was charged and convicted of is second degree rape, which is a 

 (continued . . .) 

9. Buchhold was fifty-years old when he was sentenced. He will not be eligible 

for parole for 87 and 1⁄2 years. Whether we view the 175-year sentence as six 

or three life sentences is irrelevant. By the time Buchhold is eligible for 

parole, he will be dead or 137 and 1⁄2 years old. 

10. SDCL 22-6-1 provides, in relevant part: 

Except as otherwise provided by law, felonies are divided into the 

following nine classes which are distinguished from each other by the 

following maximum penalties which are authorized upon conviction: 

(1) Class A felony: death or life imprisonment in the state 

penitentiary. A lesser sentence than death or life imprisonment may 

not be given for a Class A felony. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand 

dollars may be imposed; 

(2) Class B felony: life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. A 

lesser sentence may not be given for a Class B felony. In addition, a 

fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; 
#23839 

-29- 

_________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

Class 2 felony punishable by twenty-five years in the state penitentiary. Examining 

the counts in isolation, rather in the aggregate, results in Buchhold receiving a 

sentence that the statute did not initially allow. Conducting proportionality review 

in this manner encourages prosecutors to charge as many counts as possible to 

ensure a higher sentence that will not appear grossly disproportionate. That 

violates the spirit of Bonner and the law of the State of South Dakota. See Blair,

2006 SD 75, ¶109 n33, 721 NW2d at 82 n33 (noting “the words ‘Equal Justice Under 

Law’ call for more than just a lofty inscription”) (Sabers, J., dissenting) (citing 

Bonner, 1998 SD 75, ¶12, 577 NW2d at 578). All this sentence guarantees is that 

Buchhold will be housed, fed, medically treated and buried at the State’s expense 

when he dies in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. 

(3) Class C felony: life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. In 

addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; 

(4) Class 1 felony: fifty years imprisonment in the state penitentiary. 

In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; 

(5) Class 2 felony: twenty-five years imprisonment in the state 

penitentiary. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be 

imposed; 

(6) Class 3 felony: fifteen years imprisonment in the state 

penitentiary. In addition, a fine of thirty thousand dollars may be 

imposed[.]