The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- 3rd degree rape conviction upheld;
- Multiple consecutive life sentences in 1st
degree rape convictions upheld.
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. MCDERMOTT, 2022 S.D. 69: Defendant
drove to Vermillion from Sioux City and met the Victim at McDonalds, shortly
after 2 AM, after visiting a local bar in Vermillion – a bar which the Victim
had also visited that evening.
Subsequent consensual encounters with the Victim resulted in an
overnight stay in Victim’s dorm room and this charge being filed as a result of
non-consensual activity in dorm room.
Defendant was found guilty of 3rd degree rape by jury. Trial court sentenced Defendant to 10 years
in prison, with 8 years suspended. This
appeal is summarized in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] Defendant appeals his jury
conviction of third-degree rape. He contends that the evidence was insufficient
to sustain the conviction because “[t]he DNA evidence raised significant doubt
that penetration could have occurred.” He thus requests that this Court reverse
the circuit court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Because
there is sufficient evidence in the record, including the testimony from the
victim and the doctor that examined her after the rape, we affirm.
The
Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
STATE
v. GUZMAN, 2022 S.D. 70: At the first
trial on these rape and sexual contact charges, the jury was hung. A mistrial was declared. The 2nd trial resulted in the
Defendant being found guilty on 3 counts of 1st degree rape and an
additional charge of sexual contact. The
trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on each of the 3 counts
and an additional 15 years in prison, with all sentences to run
consecutively. The trial court also
ordered Defendant to pay costs of prosecution ($13,390.66) to Pennington County
for the State’s expert witness fees.
Defendant’s testimony in the 1st trial was utilized as
evidence by the State in the 2nd trial, with Defendant choosing not
to testify in the 2nd trial.
The gist of this appeal is summarized in the opening paragraph of the
Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] Theodore Guzman appeals
his convictions of first-degree rape and sexual contact stemming from incidents
involving two of his children and one of his children’s friends. Guzman asserts
that the circuit court erred by excluding witness testimony and evidence
offered in his case-in-chief; by allowing the State to admit a trial transcript
of his testimony from his first trial; by allowing the State to admit other act
evidence and expert testimony; and by ordering him to pay certain costs of
prosecution.
The
SD Supreme Court rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments on appeal, affirming
the lower court. The Court’s opinion is
authored by Justice DeVany and is unanimous in result on all issues. The Court’s opinion is unanimous as to
reasoning as to all issues, except the assessment of costs of $13,390.66 to
Defendant. Chief Justice Jensen,
agreeing with the result, nonetheless filed concurring opinion as to the matter
of costs.
These decisions may be accessed at
