The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Assault by cell phone;
2) Multiple rape convictions upheld.
Summaries follows:
STATE v. MCREYNOLDS, 2020 S.D. 65: This case is summarized in the 1st
paragraph of the opinion:
[¶1.] A
jury convicted Josephine Rae McReynolds of simple assault on a law enforcement
officer. McReynolds appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying
her motion for judgment of acquittal and instructing the jury on the legality
of the initial encounter between McReynolds and law enforcement. McReynolds
also argues that the circuit court violated her confrontation rights under the
Sixth Amendment during the subsequent habitual offender trial by admitting
evidence of McReynolds’s prior felony conviction without providing her an
opportunity to cross-examine the custodian of the record. We affirm.
The Court’s decision to affirm is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Justice Jensen.
Interestingly, the Defendant recorded her encounter with the
arresting officers with her cell phone and one of the multiple counts of
assault included striking a police officer in the head with her cell
phone.
STATE v. SNODGRASS, 2020 S.D. 66: The Defendant was convicted, by jury trial,
of
eight
counts of first-degree child rape in violation of SDCL 22-22-1(1) and four
counts of sexual contact with a child in violation of SDCL 22-22-7.
Afterward,
The [trial]
court imposed a twenty-year penitentiary sentence for the rape conviction in
Count 1, ten year consecutive sentences on each of the rape convictions in
Counts 2 through 8, and four fifteen-year sentences, with five years suspended,
on each sexual contact conviction. The sentences for sexual contact were
imposed consecutive to the rape convictions, but concurrent to one another.
This appeal addresses Defendant’s assertions:
Snodgrass
appeals, arguing the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the dates, times,
and locations of the crimes charged so that he could prepare an adequate
defense. Snodgrass also claims that the circuit court abused its discretion in
admitting certain other act evidence, admitting the child victim’s hearsay
statements, and overruling his objections that the State’s expert opinions
improperly vouched for the testimony of the child witness. Finally, Snodgrass
argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal
and by imposing sentences that violated the Eighth Amendment.
The SD Supreme Court rejected these assertions and affirmed in
a unanimous decision (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. Material quoted above is taken from ¶¶ 1
& 19.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
