Opinion ID: 1349971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Small Bobcat.

Text: Mark's Machinery of Yankton, South Dakota owned a 1976 Model M371 Melroe Bobcat which also had a unique serial number. The Bobcat was discovered missing on the morning of November 29, 1977. Its serial number was displayed on a metallic serial number plate that was attached by the manufacturer with four rivets to the left rear frame of the equipment. It also had an identical hidden serial number. The Bobcat's engine also had a unique number used for determining ownership. The engine's serial number was attached on a plate riveted to the engine. The small Bobcat was discovered by patrol officers on the street in front of Lodermeier's residence on March 25, 1988. Officers discovered the Bobcat's conspicuous, externally mounted serial number plate had been removed and rivet holes or damaged rivets remained. The engine's number plate had also been removed. The hidden engraved serial number was still in place. Lodermeier was charged with violations of SDCL 22-30A-7 (receiving, retaining or disposing of stolen property) and SDCL 22-11-27 (possession of property with an altered or removed serial number). Mark Hunhoff, the owner and operator of Mark's Machinery, testified he had not given Lodermeier permission either to take the Bobcat or to remove its serial numbers. Nor, to his knowledge, had anyone else. Lodermeier was convicted of three counts of receiving, retaining or disposing of stolen property in violation of SDCL 22-30A-7 and three counts of possession of property with an altered or removed serial number in violation of SDCL 22-11-27. He appeals [1] raising six issues: (1) Whether the three indictments charging possession of stolen property with the serial numbers removed were defective because they failed to allege the removal was done without the consent of the owner. (2) Whether the crimes of retaining the stolen small Bobcat and possessing the small Bobcat with its serial numbers removed were continuous in nature and therefore not barred by the statute of limitations. (3) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the stolen items as evidence obtained in violation of Lodermeier's fourth amendment rights. (4) Whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Lodermeier's previous felony conviction of transporting stolen property. (5) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that it must find someone other than Lodermeier had stolen the property before it could find him guilty of receiving or possessing stolen property. (6) Whether the trial court improperly denied Lodermeier's motion for a new trial based upon the State's failure to disclose the name of a confidential informant and based upon newly discovered evidence. We will discuss each issue seriatim and will develop further facts pertinent to each issue.