Opinion ID: 901725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Prison record of Red Star

Text: [¶ 31.] Cottier contends the trial court violated his due process right by forbidding discussion of Red Star's prison record. Packed, 2007 SD 75, ¶ 27, 736 N.W.2d at 860 (Those denied the ability to respond to the prosecution's case against them are effectively deprived of a `fundamental constitutional right to a fair opportunity to present a defense.') (citations omitted). According to Cottier, the prison records would have shown the aggressive and threatening nature of [Red Star], and the reasonableness of [Cottier's] response to [Red Star's] aggression. When the trial court denied admission of this evidence, Cottier claims to have lost the opportunity to present a complete defense. See Packed, 2007 SD 75, ¶ 27, 736 N.W.2d at 860 (citations omitted). Cottier offered the evidence pursuant to SDCL 19-12-4(2) [7] (Rule 404(a)) and SDCL 19-12-5 [8] (Rule 404(b)). [¶ 32.] SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)) allows admission of specific act(s) for purposes other than to show conduct in conformity with character. 2 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 404.12[3] (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed 2007) (discussing Rule 404(b)); SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)). Here, Cottier offered the prison record to corroborate his story of how [Red Star] attacked [Cottier] because it demonstrated how [Red Star] keeps coming and keeps coming. He claimed the evidence would have shown [Red Star's] tendency to violence and [Cottier's] reasonableness of fear. Essentially, Cottier attempted to argue Red Star's actions on the night of the attack conformed to previous specific behavior. This purpose is expressly prohibited under SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)) (stating Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith). [¶ 33.] SDCL 19-12-4(2) (Rule 404(a)) permits evidence of a victim's violent propensities through reputation and opinion evidence. [T]he purpose of introducing victim character evidence is to show that the victim had a propensity for violence and thus is more likely to have been using unlawful force at the time of the crime. 2 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 404.11[3][a] (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed 2007). [I]f it is established that the accused knew of the victim's violent character, evidence of the victim's character may be offered not only to show that the victim acted in conformity with that character, but also to establish the accused's justifiable apprehension and the reasonableness of his or her defensive measures. Id. However, evidence of the victim's specific acts, like the prison records of Red Star or discussion of specific incidents of violence, are not admissible to prove the victim acted in conformity therewith. Id.; SDCL 19-12-5; see also State v. Knecht, 1997 SD 53, ¶ 15, 563 N.W.2d 413, 419 (quoting State v. Latham, 519 N.W.2d 68, 71 (S.D.1994)). Nonetheless, a victim's specific acts may be admissible to demonstrate a defendant's state of mind, but only if the acts were known to the defendant at the time of the offense. Weinstein's, supra at §§ 404.11[3][a], 405.05[4] (noting that although specific acts of violence may not be used to prove the victim's violent propensities, specific acts . . . known to the defendant at the time of the offense may be admissible to prove the defendant's state of mind); see also Knecht, 1997 SD 53, ¶ 15, 563 N.W.2d at 419 (quoting Latham, 519 N.W.2d at 71 (citation omitted) (noting that specific instances of the victim's violent conduct are relevant only if known to [defendant] at the time of the incident)). Cottier failed to establish that he was aware of these specific acts at the time of the offense. [¶ 34.] Cottier has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited the admission of Red Star's prison record. [¶ 35.] We affirm on all issues. [¶ 36.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and ZINTER, Justices, concur. DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION # 9 DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION # 10