First suspect in Fallon homicide case found guilty

South Dakota resident Jake Kenneth Burghduff was found guilty on the charge of deliberate homicide, a felony, on Wednesday at the conclusion of a three-day trial in the homicide of Fallon resident Isaac Carrier. The verdict came after approximately two and a half hours of deliberation by a jury comprised of 12 Prairie County residents. The trial was held in Dawson County.

Burghduff was charged with one count of deliberate homicide under the state's felony murder rule.

As pointed out in court arguments, to be held liable under the felony murder rule, the state must prove that the defendant willingly engaged in the offense of assault with a weapon and the victim died as a result. The other charges against him - arson and tampering with physical evidence - were dismissed during the trial Tuesday.

Sentencing in the case has been scheduled for 3 p.m. on Oct. 17. Burghduff is currently being held at the Dawson County Correctional Facility on a $250,000 bond that will remain in place until sentencing.

Carrier was shot the night of Jan. 23 at his residence in Fallon and his apartment was set ablaze. In its allegations, the State has charged that Burghduff and his associate, Sterling Brown, traveled to Fallon that night where Brown allegedly killed Carrier and set the fire while Burghduff waited in the vehicle.

It was noted multiple times by Seventh Judicial District Court Judge Olivia Rieger that any reference to Brown committing the murder of Carrier were strictly for the purposes of this specific trial. Brown is still presumed innocent while he awaits trial in March 2024.

In the prosecution's closing arguments, state prosecutors Dan Guzynski and Meghann Paddock pointed out elements of the case, based on witness testimony, they believe are proof that Burghduff knowingly and willingly went with Brown to Fallon to harm Carrier. These elements included the two of them meeting in Ludlow, S.D. where supposedly no one would be able to question what they were up to, leaving both of their phones in Burghduff's vehicle while they drove in Brown's vehicle to Fallon, Burghduff's statements to investigators that he knew Brown was wanting to hurt someone that night and contradicting statements he made to investigators during an official interview.

During her closing remarks, Paddock attempted to call into question if Burghduff actually stayed in the vehicle while Brown allegedly carried out the crime, noting that element of the case has only been backed up by Burghduff's statements to investigators.

"Everyone involved in causing the death of another person, no matter how great or how small (the involvement), should be held responsible for their conduct, and that is what this case is about," Guzynski said.

The defense, meanwhile, has held that Brown alone is responsible for Carrier's death and that while Burghduff went with him to Fallon that night, he did not participate and did not know what Brown's intentions were.

Referring to text messages between Brown and Burghduff and statements the defendant made to investigators, the defense laid out the case that Burghduff did not know Brown intended to harm Carrier that night. He only knew that Brown was upset as a result of a custody battle his wife, Katie Bivens, was in with Carrier, her ex-husband, over their young child, and believed that he and Brown were going to drive around back roads, drink and shoot raccoons to blow off steam.

During her closing remarks, defense attorney Hailey Forcella laid the blame for Carrier's death squarely on Brown, arguing to the jury that Burghduff was not aware of Brown's intentions until they began driving towards Fallon, and pointing out that there is no evidence that Burghduff assisted in the shooting.

She even credited Burghduff for Brown's eventual arrest, pointing out that while he gave untruthful statements to investigators initially due to being nervous, she said, he also gave law enforcement the information needed to charge Brown with the murder.

"The only person that could tell you exactly what happened to Isaac Carrier that night is Sterling Brown, because once Sterling left that truck, he was solely responsible and made every single choice that led to Isaac's death," Forcella said. "Jake being in the truck when his horrible friend did a horrible thing does not make Jake responsible."

Defense Motions

Prior to closing arguments, the defense team made a substantial motion that resulted in Rieger noting "this is the closest analysis (of a case) this court has ever conducted." The motion was for a directed verdict, as the defense argued that there was not enough evidence in the case for a reasonable jury to find Burghduff committed the offenses of either aggravated assault or assault with a weapon.

The jury was not present during the session dealing with the defense motions.

In her arguments for the motion, Forcella noted that under the felony murder rule, Burghduff had to have committed to predicate crimes of either assault with a weapon or aggravated assault. She argued he could not have committed those crimes as those crimes were not committed. Rather, Brown committed the crime of deliberate homicide on his own.

"Mr. Brown and Mr. Burghduff did not commit the offense of aggravated assault or assault with a weapon. Brown committed, solely, the offense of deliberate homicide. This is not a situation where the two went to beat up Isaac Carrier and he ultimately died from the injuries he sustained, he was simply killed in a homicide with a non-contact shooting," Forcella argued.

The motion was also related to a previous charge Burghduff faced, as he was initially charged with arson and tampering with physical evidence in relation to the fire. However, the court ruled during the second day of trial that the state lacked probably cause to hold Burghduff accountable for the fire and dismissed those charges.

Forcella pointed out that the state's charge of aggravated assault was based substantially on the fire, as Carrier was alive when the fire started. However, since Burghduff could not be held accountable for the fire, she argued he couldn't be held accountable for aggravated assault.

"The state is asking the court to believe that the predicate felony that led to the death of Isaac Carrier occurred after Mr. Carrier was already shot and killed," Forcella said.

The state, however, argued that a directed verdict is reserved for when there is no evidence whatsoever of a defendant's guilt, which in this case they believe they had presented. It has been proven that Carrier was killed and that Burghduff was there, but the question of how involved he was is ultimately up to the jury to decide.

After taking the matter under advisement for approximately three hours Wednesday morning, Rieger ultimately ruled to reject the motion for directed verdict, but only in part. She agreed that since Burghduff is not being charged for the fire, he can also not be charged with aggravated assault, leaving the state to argue solely on the charge of assault with a weapon in relation to the shooting.

This was immediately followed by the defense presenting a motion for a mistrial and for the case to be dismissed with prejudice. In the motion, Forcella argued that the prosecution's evidence was substantially based on the fire, with multiple witnesses commenting on the fire and presenting images of the burnt crime scene. These testimonies, she argued, could lead to confusion for the jury regarding what the actual charges in the case are, making it impossible for them to come to a reasonable decision.

She also presented an argument to dismiss on due process grounds, saying that the prosecution essentially changed its whole theory of the case from arguing that Burghduff was responsible in Carrier's death due the fire to instead being responsible because of an agreement between Brown and himself to go to Fallon and harm Carrier.

"I don't think it's proper for the state, through their entire case, to assert one theory and then after they've rested, assert a new theory," Forcella said. "The defense, I don't believe, could have provided Mr. Burghduff with adequate representation based on this shift."

In the prosecution's response, Guzynski argued that the prosecution did not abandon its original theory of the case, saying the fire was only a subset of that theory that was dropped after the court's ruling.

"There's been no changing of theories. This is the same theory that the court ruled was admissible and that there was probable cause to go forward with," Guzynski said.

Guzynski also argued that with the fire being a central component of the situation, it is impossible to present the facts of the case without touching on the fire in some way. This prompted Forcella to note that the state was, again, making an argument centered on the fire.

"The fire in this case, you cannot, in the state's opinion, talk about Isaac Carrier's death in some fashion to a jury where the fire is not a material element, even based on the court's order. The fire itself permeated this crime and these events," he said.

In her ruling on the matter, Rieger noted that the state's argument created a lot of confusion, even for the court. However, she ultimately denied the motion to dismiss, noting that while she understands the defense's frustration, the state has presented relevant information to the argument of whether Burghduff "knew, had the purpose and agreed to going with Sterling Brown to Fallon, Mont. and committing the offense of assault with a weapon."

"If I'm wrong, someone that wears a heavier black robe than me will decide that, but this is all relevant information," Rieger said.