Opinion ID: 2216408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Evidence of Prior Burglaries at Dental Office.

Text: Dr. Benusis's office had been burglarized approximately one year before his office was gutted by fire. The unknown intruder took syringes, white powder, and Novocain. Another burglary occurred six months later, but Dr. Benusis was not aware if anything was taken. Arson was not associated with either of these previous burglaries. Hage sought to question Benusis about these events. The trial court refused to allow this testimony citing Rule 403 (SDCL 19-12-3) which provides in pertinent part: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, ... Hage argues that proof of these prior burglaries could have rebutted the State's theory that he obtained the dental tools at the time he allegedly set fire to the dental office; they support his alternative theory on how he may have obtained these instruments. Evidence of other offenses is relevant if it tends 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. SDCL 19-12-1; State v. Reutter, 374 N.W.2d 617 (S.D. 1985); State v. O'Connor, 172 N.W.2d 724 (S.D.1969). Yet other than the burglaries themselves, no other evidence in the record supports this hypothesis; the jury would have to surmise that Hage had broken in and stolen the dental tools six months or a year earlier. The defense was entitled to pursue its theory of the case, but only with sufficient factual foundation. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of this testimony which would serve only to mislead the jury and confuse the issues. State v. Hanson, 456 N.W.2d 135, 138 (S.D.1990); State v. Bawdon, 386 N.W.2d 484, 486 (S.D.1986).