Opinion ID: 2128105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the state provided sufficient proof of identity to use a south dakota conviction for enhancement

Text: Wabashaw contends that the district court erred during the enhancement stage. He argues that the State failed to prove that an Elroy Wabasha who was convicted for robbery in 1977 in South Dakota was the same person as the defendant in this case, Elroy Wabashaw. The State contends that the evidence at the enhancement hearings established the two defendants were the same. Wabashaw argues that during the enhancement hearing, the court received testimony comparing two photographs, both alleged to be of Wabashaw. He argues that the court erred in overruling his hearsay and authentication objection and that the ruling was prejudicial. However, we need not determine whether the court erred in overruling Wabashaw's objection. Assuming the court committed an error, it did not prejudice Wabashaw because the record contained sufficient evidence to prove his identity. [15] A prior conviction and the identity of the accused as the person convicted may be shown by any competent evidence. [15] This includes the oral testimony of the accused and authenticated records maintained by the courts or penal and custodial authorities. [16] We have stated that fingerprint identity testified to by an expert is perhaps the best known method of the highest probative value in establishing identification. [17] Fingerprints of Elroy Wabasha were taken in 1981 when he was serving his 15-year sentence for the 1977 robbery conviction. Knox County authorities also took fingerprints from Wabashaw when he was in jail in April 2005. At the enhancement hearing, the parties stipulated that if called to testify, a fingerprint examiner would conclude that the same individual contributed the fingerprints in both the 1981 set and the 2005 set. As we have stated, this fingerprint evidence is perhaps the best known method of establishing identity. [16] We have also stated that an authenticated record establishing a prior conviction of a defendant with the same name is prima facie evidence sufficient to establish identity for enhancing punishment. And absent any denial or contradictory evidence, it is sufficient to support a finding of a prior conviction. [18] The court received a certified copy of the conviction from the 1977 robbery case. The defendant's name appears as Elroy Wabasha in the authenticated record, though the defendant's name in the present case is Elroy Wabashaw. [17] Under the idem sonans doctrine, a mistake in the spelling of a name is immaterial if both modes of spelling have the same sound and appearance. [19] Here, the spelling discrepancy is immaterial. Thus, the certified copy of the conviction in the 1977 robbery case was an authenticated record establishing a prior conviction of a defendant with the same name. Therefore, the record is prima facie evidence sufficient to establish identity for enhancing punishment. [20] Furthermore, Wabashaw has not offered any evidence or claimed that he is not the same person referred to in the prior conviction record. We conclude that the court did not err in determining the State sufficiently proved Wabashaw was the same person as the Elroy Wabasha who was convicted in the 1977 South Dakota robbery case.