Introduction

The case of State of South Dakota v. Rocco William Disanto (688 N.W.2d 201) represents a pivotal moment in South Dakota's criminal jurisprudence concerning the delineation between solicitation and attempt to commit murder. Disanto, who had a history of volatile relationships and criminal behavior, was convicted of three counts of attempted first-degree murder for his role in orchestrating the murder of his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend by hiring a contract killer. The Supreme Court of South Dakota, however, reversed these convictions, setting a significant precedent regarding what constitutes sufficient action towards the commission of a crime under South Dakota law.

Summary of the Judgment

Rocco Disanto was initially convicted by a jury on three counts of attempted first-degree murder after engaging a law enforcement officer posing as a contract killer to kill his former girlfriend, Linda Olson, and her new boyfriend, Denny Egemo. Disanto provided detailed instructions, including the method of killing and plans to eliminate any potential witnesses. However, shortly after finalizing the arrangement, Disanto attempted to "halt" the murders by contacting the intermediary, citing fabricated reasons to avoid suspicion.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the convictions, concluding that Disanto's actions amounted to mere preparation rather than an overt act toward the commission of murder. The Court emphasized that solicitation alone does not fulfill the statutory requirements for an attempted crime under South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) 22-4-1, which necessitates both intent and a direct act towards committing the crime.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references both South Dakota and out-of-state case law to frame the distinction between preparation and attempt. Key precedents include:

• STATE v. MARTINEZ, 88 S.D. 369 (1974): Clarified that an "act" towards the commission of a crime must unequivocally demonstrate that the crime is imminent.
• PEOPLE v. DILLON, 34 Cal.3d 441 (1983): Highlighted the necessity of not allowing last-minute changes of heart to exonerate perpetrators once significant acts toward the crime have been committed.
• STATE v. OTTO, 102 Idaho 250 (1981): Held that mere solicitation without an overt act does not constitute an attempt to commit murder.
• STATE v. DAVIs, 319 Mo. 1222 (1928): Established that solicitation to hire a murderer without further action is insufficient for an attempted murder charge.

These cases collectively reinforce the principle that solicitation, absent a substantive act towards the crime's execution, does not meet the threshold for an attempted offense.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting SDCL 22-4-1, which defines an attempt as someone who "tries to commit a crime and does any act toward the commission of the crime but fails or is prevented." The Court dissected the elements of intent and action, determining that while Disanto had clear intent to commit murder, his actions did not amount to an overt act towards its execution as required by the statute.

Disanto's engagement with the feigned contract killer involved planning and solicitation, but the Court found that these did not cross into the realm of perpetration. The critical factor was the absence of a direct act that would lead to the immediate commission of the crime, thereby classifying Disanto’s conduct as preparation rather than attempt.

Moreover, the Court distinguished between mere preparation, such as planning or arranging, and a substantial step towards committing the crime. Since neither Disanto nor the undercover agent committed an act that would culminate in the murder, the Court held that the statutory criteria for an attempted crime were not satisfied.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for future criminal cases in South Dakota, particularly in distinguishing between preparation and attempt in the context of hiring contract killers or similar schemes. It clarifies that mere solicitation, without additional actionable steps towards perpetration, does not meet the legal threshold for an attempted crime.

Law enforcement and prosecutors must now ensure that beyond just soliciting an individual to commit a crime, there must be tangible actions demonstrating a direct movement towards the crime's execution. This ruling may necessitate adjustments in how attempted crimes are charged and prosecuted, emphasizing the need for clear, substantial actions that fulfill the statutory requirements.

Additionally, this decision may influence legislative considerations, potentially prompting the South Dakota Legislature to revisit and possibly amend the language of attempt statutes to address nuances highlighted by this case.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of South Dakota's decision in State of South Dakota v. Rocco William Disanto underscores the critical distinction between preparation and attempt within the state's criminal statutes. By reversing the attempted murder convictions, the Court affirmed that solicitation alone, without a substantive overt act towards execution, does not fulfill the statutory requirements for an attempted crime under SDCL 22-4-1.

This ruling reinforces the necessity for prosecutors to present clear evidence of actions that constitute a direct movement towards committing the crime, ensuring that mere planning or solicitation does not unjustly lead to criminal liability. It preserves the integrity of the legal definitions of solicitation and attempt, maintaining a structured and deliberate approach to criminal prosecutions.

Ultimately, this judgment serves as a guiding precedent for future cases, delineating the boundaries of criminal attempt and ensuring that legal interpretations remain aligned with legislative intent and the principles of justice.