Case Title: State v. Pickering

Citation: 317 N.W.2d 926

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1982-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
317 N.W.2d 926 (1982) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Michael D. PICKERING, Defendant and Appellant. No. 13510. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs February 25, 1982. Decided April 7, 1982. Douglas E. Kludt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee, Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief. John P. Abbott, Brandon, for defendant and appellant. FOSHEIM, Justice. Appellant, Michael D. Pickering, was charged and convicted of kidnapping under SDCL 22-19-1(3). We affirm on his appeal. Appellant raises two issues, both claiming the trial court erred in refusing his proffered instructions on lesser included offenses. We recently reviewed the South Dakota law governing lesser included offense instructions in State v. Oien, 302 N.W.2d 807, 808-809 (S.D.1981): Appellant was charged with kidnapping, in violation of SDCL 22-19-1(3). That statute reads: Appellant contends that the trial court should have instructed on simple assault as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. The instruction appellant proposed to the trial court is a combination of SDCL 22-18-1(1) and (4). Any person who: The third component of the legal test for a lesser included offense has not been met in this case, as the elements of actual ability (SDCL 22-18-1(1)), physical menace and serious bodily harm (SDCL 22-18-1(4)) are not elements of kidnapping. Appellant also argues that the trial court should have instructed on disorderly conduct as a lesser included offense of kidnapping. The disorderly conduct instruction proposed to the trial court is SDCL 22-13-1(1): Even though disorderly conduct may be directed at one person, it is clear from the statute that an essential element of disorderly conduct is the public nature of the offense. Cf. Ellis v. Archer, 38 S.D. 285, 161 N.W. 192 (1917) (wherein we distinguish public from private place). That element is not an element of kidnapping. Appellant's proposed instruction on disorderly conduct likewise fails to meet the third component of the legal test. Although we realize that both the factual and legal test must be met before a lesser included offense instruction is warranted, we have nevertheless reviewed the trial evidence. The State introduced evidence supporting the elements of kidnapping. Appellant introduced no evidence in his defense. The evidence was such that appellant was either guilty or not guilty as charged. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. All the Justices concur.