Background
On the evening of November 30, 2023, David Shangreaux, Jr. and his girlfriend Liv Guerue invited E.M., a teenage waitress they had met at a local Perkins restaurant, to their apartment in Pierre, South Dakota. Two of E.M.’s friends joined later in the evening. Witnesses testified that Shangreaux—visibly intoxicated, with a BAC estimated between .191 and .241—became agitated during a card game, threatened the two friends with a knife, and blocked the apartment exit before allowing them to leave. After they departed, Guerue fled to a nearby Taco Johns. Police responding to a neighbor’s 911 call found Shangreaux at the door sweating, breathing heavily, and with a knife blade protruding from his pocket. Officers then discovered E.M. deceased in the bathroom, having been stabbed seven times in the back and neck.
Forensic evidence linked Shangreaux directly to the crime: three latent fingerprints on the knife found above E.M.’s body were identified as his, E.M.’s DNA was found on multiple knives and on Shangreaux’s clothing and shoes, and a shoe-tread pattern consistent with his footwear was identified on the bathroom floor. During post-arrest interviews, Shangreaux gave three materially different accounts of what happened—first claiming a blackout, then implicating his girlfriend, and ultimately admitting to stabbing E.M. himself at least once.
Shangreaux was indicted in December 2023 on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and aggravated assault. After being found incompetent and subsequently restored to competency, he stood trial in April 2025. The jury acquitted him of first-degree murder and aggravated assault but convicted him of second-degree murder. The circuit court sentenced him to life in prison. Shangreaux appealed on two grounds: the circuit court’s denial of his Batson challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of a Native American juror, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.
The Court’s Holding
On the Batson claim, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not clearly err in sustaining the State’s peremptory strike of Juror P.D. The court first noted that the defense’s prima facie showing was likely insufficient—the defense did no more than identify P.D.’s race and announce a challenge, which mirrors language the Eighth Circuit has found inadequate. However, because the State never raised the prima facie deficiency before the circuit court (instead immediately offering its race-neutral justifications), the State waived the argument on appeal. Proceeding to step three of the Batson framework, the court found no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the State’s stated reasons—P.D.’s prior criminal history and his prior negative experience with law enforcement—were not a pretext for racial discrimination. Both justifications are well-recognized as race-neutral under Eighth Circuit precedent.
On the prosecutorial misconduct claim, the court applied plain error review because defense counsel failed to object at trial. The State’s closing argument included statements that the defendant “probably lied on the stand” and repeated assertions of “we know” regarding Shangreaux’s guilt and intent. The court analyzed whether these remarks constituted improper vouching—i.e., whether the prosecutor placed the government’s prestige behind its assessment of witness credibility in a way that invaded the jury’s exclusive province—and affirmed the conviction, finding the defendant had not met the demanding burden required to obtain relief under plain error review.
Key Takeaways
- A bare Batson objection that identifies only the juror’s race—without pointing to supporting facts or circumstances—is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory intent under the three-step Batson framework.
- A party that fails to raise the inadequacy of the opponent’s prima facie Batson showing in the trial court waives that argument on appeal; the State cannot raise it for the first time on appeal when it instead immediately tendered race-neutral justifications below.
- A prospective juror’s prior criminal history and prior negative interactions with law enforcement are recognized race-neutral justifications for a peremptory strike, even when the juror states he can remain fair and impartial.
- Unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims—including allegations of improper vouching during closing argument—are reviewed only for plain error, placing a heavy burden on the defendant to show prejudice affecting the fairness of the proceeding.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the procedural mechanics of Batson challenges in South Dakota practice. Defense counsel must do more than name the stricken juror’s race to trigger meaningful Batson scrutiny; the objection must identify specific facts supporting an inference of discriminatory motive. At the same time, the opinion signals that prosecutors who bypass the prima facie question by immediately offering justifications cannot later argue the challenge was procedurally deficient—a symmetrical limitation that shapes trial strategy for both sides.
The case also reinforces the high bar plain error review imposes on unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims. Attorneys who fail to object contemporaneously to potentially improper vouching statements risk forfeiting appellate relief even when the remarks are troubling, underscoring the importance of timely objections to closing-argument overreach in criminal trials.