Illegal Immigrant Status of Victim of Crime must be revealed to Jury; Split (3/2) Ruling by SD Supreme Court

 The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Criminal Convictions reversed because “illegal immigrant” status of victim not disclosed to jury

 

STATE v. DICKERSON & REECY, 2022 S.D. 23:  Two Criminal Defendants were found guilty by jury of 1^st degree robbery and 1^st degree burglary of illegal immigrant. One of the Defendants was also found guilty of aggravated assault on the illegal immigrant.  The Trial Court prohibited Defendants from showing the illegal immigration status of the victim, “not[ing] serious public policy concerns associated with allowing evidence of a victim’s immigration  status, including that it might deter people from reporting crimes.”  On appeal Defendants asserted that their 6^th Amendment right to confront and cross examine witnesses was denied by Trial Court’s refusal to allow evidence of “illegal” status of victim.  Defendants further asserted that the Trial Court erred in admitting a  printout (from Victim’s bank) of attempted transactions, showing attempted usage of victim’s stolen debit card by Defendants.

 

In a split decision (3/2), the SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.  The majority opinion, authored by Justice DeVaney, holds that the illegal immigration status of the victim related to credibility and should have been admitted into evidence.  The majority opinion also holds that the admission of the printout evidence was reversible error.  

 

Justice Salter filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kern joins.  The dissent states that the illegal status of the victim “lacks logical relevance” to the issues and that the admission of the printout evidence was harmless error. 

          

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

SD Supreme Court recognizes civil claim by opposing party against Divorce Attorney, and more

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Criminal convictions affirmed;

 

2)   Consecutive 25 year sentences;

 

3)   Civil claim by opposing party against divorce attorney recognized

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. AHMED, 2022 S.D. 20: Defendant appeals jury conviction of 7 counts including aggravated assault and grand theft by receiving stolen property.  The basis of his appeal is “insufficiency of evidence” as to these two counts.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

STATE v. DELEON, 2022 S.D. 21: Defendant pled guilty to the charges of attempted first-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. The trial court imposed 25 year sentences on each charge, to run consecutively.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s arguments based upon the 8^th Amendment (“cruel and unusual punishmen”) and abuse of discretion.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

 

GANTVOORT v. RANSCHAU, 2022 S.D. 22: This is a civil action against Attorney and client (W), arising out of the surreptitious recording of opposing party (H) during a “tumultuous divorce” proceeding.  Some 51 recordings were made via a voice-activated recording device placed in H’s office. Two of the recordings were offered into evidence in the divorce trial. This appeal relates only to the claims against Attorney.  The trial court  granted summary judgment for Attorney on all three counts made against him -- invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting W in invasion of his privacy, and civil conspiracy with W.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on Count 2 (aiding and abetting).  This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  Former Chief Justice Gilbertson participated on this case which was orally argued on Nov. 17, 2020.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .