Opinion ID: 2068469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing a late endorsement of witnesses on the part ii habitual offender information?

Text: SDCL 23A-6-10 provides: The prosecuting attorney shall endorse upon each information the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of its filing. Any further endorsement of names upon the information shall be done only with permission of the court. This section shall not preclude calling any witnesses whose names or the materiality of whose testimony is first learned by the prosecuting attorney during the trial. This section does not require the endorsement of names of witnesses which are to be used only in rebuttal. [T]he trial judge has discretion in deciding whether to allow late endorsement of witnesses. State v. White Mountain, 477 N.W.2d 36, 38 (S.D.1991). In this instance, the following witnesses were endorsed on the Part II habitual offender information at the time of its filing: Law enforcement personnel Freeborn Clerk of Courts, Albert Lee, Minnesota Mower Clerk of Courts, Austin, Minnesota Personnel from Minnesota Correctional Facility, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Forensic Laboratory Personnel, Pierre, South Dakota Pine Clerk of Courts, Pine City, Minnesota On the day of trial on the Part II information, state sought leave for a late endorsement of the specific names of some of these witnesses. The witnesses were: Spencer Osterburg, a police officer from Albert Lee, Minnesota; Phil VandeWalle, a police detective from Huron, South Dakota; Sam Casper, a police officer for the City of Huron, South Dakota; and, Ron Sjerven, a fingerprint examiner for the South Dakota Forensic Laboratory in Pierre, South Dakota. Leave for late endorsement was granted over Ganrude's objection. Ganrude now asserts allowance of the late endorsement was an abuse of the trial court's discretion. At the outset, we question whether state was required to endorse the names of witnesses on the Part II information in any event. In State v. Williamson, 342 N.W.2d 15 (S.D.1983), the defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender with three or more prior felony convictions under SDCL 22-7-8. However, the Part II information only charged him with having one or two prior felony convictions under SDCL 22-7-7. On appeal, the defendant argued that because the Part II information charged a violation of SDCL 22-7-7 and not 22-7-8, the trial court was required to sentence him under 22-7-7. We held: SDCL 22-7-11 requires that Part II of the habitual information must state the times, places and specific crimes alleged to be prior convictions and must be signed by the prosecutor. (Emphasis added.) Although an information on the principal charge is required to cite the statute which a defendant is alleged to have violated, SDCL 23A-6-4, there is no comparable requirement for a habitual offender information, SDCL 22-7-11. Williamson, 342 N.W.2d at 17. The same is true with regard to the endorsement of witnesses. Although under SDCL 23A-6-10, an information on the principal charge is required to list the witnesses known to the prosecuting attorney, there is no comparable requirement for a habitual offender information in SDCL 22-7-11. Even if we were to hold that a habitual offender information must contain an endorsement of witnesses, Ganrude has failed to preserve any error in the late endorsement for appeal. [A] defendant in a criminal case must ask for a continuance when confronted with surprise if he wishes to preserve that point on appeal.... It is incumbent on the defense to present the appropriate motion in order to preserve any error on appeal. State v. Smith, 477 N.W.2d 27, 34 (S.D.1991). Here, Ganrude objected but never moved for a continuance when state sought leave for the late endorsement. Moreover, the record reflects Ganrude knew of witness Osterburg on April 3, 1992; witness Sjerven approximately March 5, 1992; and, had access to the information testified to by the remaining two witnesses before Ganrude's principal trial in February 1992. Trial on the Part II information took place on April 15, 1992. Thus, it appears Ganrude had sufficient notice of the evidence to be offered through the belatedly endorsed witnesses to avoid any prejudicial effect from the late endorsement. Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and HENDERSON, WUEST, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., participating.