1) Trial court erred
in relying on evidentiary principle of res gestae;
Summary
follows:
STATE v. ROUSE, 2025 S.D. 29: Based upon an incident which
occurred during inmate’s incarceration “in the
maximum security cellblock of the Hughes County Jail,” he was
charged and convicted of “three counts of aggravated assault (physical menace) against a
law enforcement officer and one count of threatening a law enforcement officer.”
At trial, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce evidence of the
underlying reason why Defendant was incarcerated – because he was “awaiting trial on an
aggravated assault charge.” The trial court ruled that such evidence
was “admissible as res
gestae evidence.” The
SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the three felony counts, but not on
the misdemeanor conviction, stating:
From our review of the record, we conclude
that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a
different outcome if the testimony about [Defendant] being in jail for an
aggravated assault involving an alleged stabbing had not been admitted. See
Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26, 1 N.W.3d at 686. We therefore conclude [Defendant]
was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of this testimony such that a
reversal and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault counts is
warranted.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice DeVaney.
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
Summary
follows:
STATE v. ROUSE, 2025 S.D. 29: Based upon an incident which
occurred during inmate’s incarceration “in the
maximum security cellblock of the Hughes County Jail,” he was
charged and convicted of “three counts of aggravated assault (physical menace) against a
law enforcement officer and one count of threatening a law enforcement officer.”
At trial, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce evidence of the
underlying reason why Defendant was incarcerated – because he was “awaiting trial on an
aggravated assault charge.” The trial court ruled that such evidence
was “admissible as res
gestae evidence.” The
SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the three felony counts, but not on
the misdemeanor conviction, stating:
From our review of the record, we conclude
that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a
different outcome if the testimony about [Defendant] being in jail for an
aggravated assault involving an alleged stabbing had not been admitted. See
Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26, 1 N.W.3d at 686. We therefore conclude [Defendant]
was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of this testimony such that a
reversal and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault counts is
warranted.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice DeVaney.
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
