Opinion ID: 2216009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of state's case and instead allowing state to reopen its case for the purpose of providing identification evidence?

Text: Busack also asserts that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow State to reopen its case to admit evidence of his identification. We reject this argument. SDCL 23A-24-2 provides in relevant part: After a jury has been impaneled and sworn, a trial must proceed in the following order: (1) If the indictment or information is for a felony, the clerk or prosecuting attorney must read it and state the plea of the defendant to the jury. In all other cases this formality may be dispensed with; (2) The prosecuting attorney or other counsel for the state must make an opening statement and offer the evidence in support of the indictment or information; (3) The defendant or his counsel may then open his defense and offer his evidence in support thereof. However, the defendant or his counsel may make his opening statement immediately after the prosecuting attorney's opening statement; (4) The parties may then, respectively, offer rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good reason, in furtherance of justice or to correct an evident oversight, permits them to offer evidence upon their original case .... (Emphasis supplied.) This statute empowers a trial court, in furtherance of justice, to reopen a case and allow a party to present evidence which was omitted through oversight. State v. Orelup, 520 N.W.2d 898, 903 (S.D.1994). The record before us suggests that State's failure to have witnesses point to Busack and explicitly identify him was a mere oversight. We find no abuse of discretion in allowing State to reopen its case and admit more definite identification evidence out of turn. See Orelup, 520 N.W.2d at 903 (allowing evidence of venue to be presented after State had rested but before defense began presenting its case); State v. Van Beek, 87 S.D. 598, 604, 212 N.W.2d 659, 662-23 (1973) (allowing State to offer evidence out of turn when, due to an oversight, the evidence was omitted from State's case in chief); State v. Larkin, 87 S.D. 61, 69, 202 N.W.2d 862, 867 (1972) (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court permitted State to reopen its case to admit stolen items into evidence). Affirmed. AMUNDSON and KONENKAMP, JJ., concur. SABERS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. GILBERTSON, J., not having been a member of the court at the time this case was submitted, did not participate.