Opinion ID: 1348762
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: William Erdman

Text: Phillips argues that Erdman's testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial, improper character evidence, and improper bad act evidence. Erdman, who had known Gibbs since 1984, testified as to his observations of Gibbs' physical condition and the condition of Gibbs' home during the time Phillips and Christenson were living with Gibbs. Specifically, Erdman testified that the house had a strong odor of dog urine and body odor and that Gibbs' physical condition had deteriorated and he seemed disoriented. SDCL 19-12-1 provides:  `Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. See State v. Brings Plenty, 459 N.W.2d 390, 398 (S.D.1990). Any fact that tends to connect [Phillips] to the commission of the crime is relevant. Id.; State v. Reutter, 374 N.W.2d 617, 625 (S.D.1985); State v. Johnson, 316 N.W.2d 652, 654 (S.D.1982). Relevance is a precursor to the admittance of any evidence.... State v. Grooms, 399 N.W.2d 358, 361 (S.D.1987); State v. Means, 363 N.W.2d 565, 568 (S.D. 1985); State v. Wedemann, 339 N.W.2d 112, 115 (S.D.1983). Once the trial court deems it relevant, the evidence is only admissible if it is more probative than prejudicial. Id.; SDCL 19-12-3. The trial court is vested with discretion in making its probativeprejudicial determination, and upon appeal, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of its discretion. Grooms, 399 N.W.2d at 361; Holland, 346 N.W.2d at 307. We need not reach the second part of the test, since the evidence was not relevant. The time period which Erdman's testimony related to was the fall of 1989. The conspiracy to murder Gibbs was not formulated until January, 1990. We fail to see how Erdman's testimony connected Phillips to a conspiracy to kill Gibbs. While this testimony was irrelevant, it was harmless error to admit it.  `Prejudicial error' is error which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the jury's verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it. State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 818 (S.D.1987); State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 498 (S.D.1986); State v. Reddington, 80 S.D. 390, 396, 125 N.W.2d 58, 62 (1963). SDCL 23A-44-14 defines harmless error as `[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights[.]'  Michalek, 407 N.W.2d at 819. See also State v. Younger, 453 N.W.2d 834, 838 (S.D.1990). In United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 510-11, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1981, 76 L.Ed.2d 96, 107 (1983), the Supreme Court framed the question the reviewing court must ask: Absent [the alleged error] ... is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty? We believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict on the conspiracy charge even absent the foregoing error.