The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Criminal convictions of rape, kidnapping, etc. aff’d;
2) Criminal Sentencing for child porn aff’d.
Summaries follows:
STATE v. EVANS, 2021 S.D. 12: This criminal case is
nicely summarized in the opening paragraph of the opinion:
[¶1.] Henry
David Evans appeals his conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of
several charges, including rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and burglary.
Evans challenges the circuit court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress,
claiming the state law enforcement officers were without jurisdiction to seize
his personal property located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. He further contends
the court committed a structural error by substantially deviating from the
statutory procedures governing jury selection. Finally, Evans asserts the
circuit court abused its discretion in admitting other act evidence from his
ex-wife and in admitting an officer’s testimony regarding corroboration of the
victim’s account of the incident. We affirm.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice DeVaney.
STATE v. MILES, 2021 S.D. 13: Criminal Defendant entered
plea of “nolo contendere” to 3 counts for possession of child
pornography. The trial court imposed a sentence of 10 years in prison,
the state penitentiary, with six years suspended on each count, further
ordering that counts 1 and 2 be served consecutively with count 3 to run
concurrently. Defendant’s appeal is premises upon a violation of the 8th
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, urging that his
conduct consisted simply of downloading images and that, “he did not produce the child pornography, did not commit sexual
acts with minors, and did not have the child pornography in a readily
accessible part of his computer.”
The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating,
In
recognition of the severity of this conduct, the [South Dakota] Legislature
criminalized each act of downloading an image, extending legislative protection
to each exploited child in each picture. Possession of these images is an
egregious offense because it not only perpetuates the harm to some of the most
vulnerable members of our society, but it also invades their privacy and
furthers the profit motive of the manufacturers and distributors of child
pornography.
Particularly damaging for Defendant’s argument on appeal was
the trial court’s observations, as described and upheld in ¶ 21 of the opinion:
[¶21.] Prior to
imposing the sentence, the circuit court noted that Miles failed to accept
responsibility for these offenses. The court found “incredulous,” Miles’s
explanation that he may have accidently downloaded the images of child
pornography. The court also rejected any inference that the downloads were the
result of Miles’s actions while in “a drunken stupor,” when contrasted with his
repetitive internet searches using terms designed to locate child pornography.
“A defendant’s remorse and prospects for rehabilitation are proper
considerations in sentencing.” Because “rehabilitation must begin with the
offender’s acknowledgment of personal fault[,] [t]he inability or unwillingness
to accept personal responsibility may be considered by a sentencing court as an
indicator that a defendant’s rehabilitation prospects are limited.” Blair,
2006 S.D. 75, ¶ 52, 721 N.W.2d at 68 (citation omitted). The circuit court did
not err by considering Miles’s lack of remorse and inability to accept
responsibility for his criminal conduct.
The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice Kern.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
