FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, June 11, 2026

Contact: Tony Mangan, Communications Director, 605-773-6878   

South Dakota Supreme Court Issues Companion Decisions Clarifying

Effect of Pretrial Self‑Defense Immunity Rulings Once a Case Proceeds to Trial

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley commends the South Dakota Supreme Court for its separate opinions in State v. Bendel, 2026 S.D. 35, and State v. Braveheart, 2026 S.D. 36, where each involved a conviction for first‑degree manslaughter arising from violent confrontations that resulted in death.

The Court held, for the first time, that once a circuit court determines that a defendant is not entitled to statutory immunity from prosecution under SDCL 22‑18‑4.8, and the case proceeds to trial, any challenge to that immunity ruling becomes moot after a final judgment of conviction. Because the purpose of immunity is to shield a defendant from the burdens of prosecution and trial, the Court concluded that it cannot grant effectual relief after a conviction has already occurred. Defendants who wish to challenge an adverse immunity ruling must do so before trial through a petition for intermediate appeal. Once a case has been tried and a jury has found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court cannot revisit the pretrial immunity decision which has a much lower burden.

“These decisions provide important clarity on how South Dakota’s self‑defense immunity statute operates once a case proceeds to trial,” said Attorney General Jackley. “By confirming that immunity challenges can only be raised before trial, the Court has given prosecutors, defense counsel, and circuit courts a clear procedural framework moving forward.”

In Bendel, the defendant beat his long‑time friend with a two‑by‑four board after an initial chokehold. The victim fled, but Bendel pursued him for approximately 50 yards and struck him multiple times as he lay on the ground, causing extensive injuries that led to his death. Bendel sought pretrial dismissal based on statutory immunity. The circuit court denied the motion after finding the State rebutted his prima facie showing by clear and convincing evidence.

In Braveheart, the defendant shot and killed an unarmed man during a confrontation in a store parking lot. A pretrial evidentiary hearing was held on Braveheart’s claim of self‑defense immunity, and the circuit court denied the motion. At trial, the State presented eyewitness testimony and video evidence showing that although the victim slapped Braveheart multiple times, the victim had stepped back and raised his hands when Braveheart fired the fatal shot.

The juries in both cases convicted the men of first-degree manslaughter.

These companion decisions provide the Court’s first explicit guidance on the effect of immunity rulings under South Dakota’s 2021 self‑defense statutory framework. The Supreme Court held that the issue of immunity is no longer justiciable after a conviction, because the harm the statute was designed to prevent—prosecution itself—has already occurred.

In addition to the shared mootness holding, the Court affirmed both convictions, concluding that the juries had a sufficient evidentiary basis to reject claims of self‑defense and find the elements of first‑degree manslaughter satisfied.

The Attorney General’s office represented the State in both appeals. The opinions were released Thursday. They can be found here:

https://ujs.sd.gov/media/iywf0w5l/31107.pdf

https://ujs.sd.gov/media/ur3bekmu/30927.pdf

-30-