State v. Morehead

Once again, we probe into “the night the lights went out in Mitchell, South Dakota.” Mr. O’Brien has successfully lied his way to freedom1 and now the majority illuminates the path for Mr. Morehead’s conspiratorial journey to the same end.

Truly this is a ease of déjá vu, for the majority once more attempts to breathe life into the long dormant and antiquated law of perjury drawn from State v. Pratt, 21 S.D. 305, 112 N.W. 152 (1907). The pivotal requirement of Pratt is that at least one warm body (a witness) must testify that defendant’s statement was untrue. Additionally, corroborative…