The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Defendant’s utilization of clinical psychologist
prohibited;
- Attorney Discipline proceeding;
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. HERNANDEZ. 2023 S.D. 17: In this murder prosecution of a mother in regard to
the death of her child, the trial entered a preliminary order which would
permit the testimony of a clinical psychologist to testify as to the capacity
of a 10 year old as the alleged perpetrator, with testimony to be “based
in substantial part upon an analysis of the ten-year-old’s prior behavior and
other acts.” The state was permitted to
take an intermediate appeal which was successful, with the Court holding:
[¶46.] While Dr. Stokes has
specialized knowledge regarding the behaviors of children, like N.M., who have
been exposed to domestic violence, the opinion he offers and the underlying
acts on which his opinion hinges fall within a specific category of evidence that
must be scrutinized under Rule 404(a) and (b). Because we have determined that
his opinion itself is not admissible under these rules, there is no avenue
under Rule 703 by which Dr. Stokes can testify about N.M.’s other acts.
[¶47.] Because the circuit court
erroneously applied Rule 404(a) and (b) and Rule 703 in allowing the admission
of Dr. Stokes’s proffered testimony, the court abused its discretion.
Therefore, we reverse the court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.
This
decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney (on
reassignment). The case was orally
argued on April 27 last year, 2022.
DISCIPLINE
OF FRAUENSHUH, 2023 S.D. 18: This is an
attorney discipline case, with this attorney having a prior history of
disciplinary action against him in Minnesota.
The opinion describes the attorney as “an experienced trial
attorney, having tried more than 100 jury trials.” The conduct with is the
subject of this proceeding is described in the opinion, as follows:
[¶4.] Frauenshuh was privately
retained in 2019 to represent K.L. on charges of sexual contact with a child
under sixteen and attempted sexual contact with a child under sixteen filed in
Lincoln County. Lincoln County Deputy State’s Attorney William Golden was the
lead prosecutor on the charges against K.L. The case proceeded to jury trial on
October 27, 2020. Before the trial concluded, the circuit court granted
Golden’s motion for a mistrial after finding that Frauenshuh had repeatedly
violated several court orders and evidentiary rulings. A second trial began on
March 8, 2021. During Frauenshuh’s opening statement, the court again found
that he violated the court’s prior evidentiary ruling. The jury returned a
verdict of not guilty on both counts, and the court entered a judgment of
acquittal for K.L. On March 26, 2021, Golden filed a complaint against
Frauenshuh with the Board.
The
Referee assigned to this proceeding recommended a 3 month suspension. The Court, instead, imposed a 30 day
suspension. This decision is unanimous
(5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
