Opinion ID: 2218451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Klein's Prior Application for a Court-Appointed Attorney.

Text: Klein next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted his 1986 application for court-appointed counsel. [4] It appears from the record that the application was admitted as a statement of Klein's assets. Klein contends that the application should not have been admitted because it could have inferred to the jury that he faced serious criminal charges in the past. Using the same two-prong test set forth earlier herein, we believe that the application was relevant evidence of Klein's financial condition and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Moreover, in addition to our comment in footnote 2, supra, it appears that Klein has failed to preserve this issue for appeal due to his counsel's stipulation to the admission of the sanitized application as a public record. See State v. Novaock, 414 N.W.2d 299 (S.D.1987). We have examined the other issues raised by Klein (that the trial court erred in (1) refusing an in-court fire demonstration; (2) allowing cross-examination concerning a letter written by Klein regarding restitution in another case; and (3) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal) and find them to be without merit. Affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN, J., concur. HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., concur in result.