Opinion ID: 2175839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Witness' Acquittal

Text: New argues the court erred in allowing White Horse to testify that he had been acquitted of Mousseaux's murder and kidnapping. New claims this evidence was unduly prejudicial, and implicated him as Mousseaux's killer. We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings on an abuse of discretion standard. In State v. Moriarty, 501 N.W.2d 352 (S.D.1993), this court stated: `For us to disturb the evidentiary rulings of the circuit court, we must determine that an abuse of discretion has occurred. Once again, an abuse of discretion refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence.' Id. at 355 (quoting State v. Devall, 489 N.W.2d 371, 374 (S.D.1992)). New filed a motion in limine to prohibit State from presenting testimony of White Horse's acquittal before the jury. The trial court initially granted the motion. However, the trial court later changed its ruling based on references made by New's attorney in opening statement that White Horse was involved in Mousseaux's death. The court said that excluding evidence of White Horse's acquittal suggests to the jury that Mr. White Horse has a lot more at stake in the outcome of this trial then he, in fact, does. The court stated that denying the jury this evidence would mislead them into believing that White Horse's testimony against New was based upon a plea arrangement. I can see where the jury might draw the conclusion that Mr. White Horse avoided a murder prosecution by [] agreeing to testify and taking the guilty plea on the accessory charge. On redirect examination, White Horse testified that he had been acquitted of the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Mousseaux. New alleges error because he claims the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighs its probative value. State v. Chief Eagle, 377 N.W.2d 141, 143 (S.D.1985). Despite this contention, New sufficiently placed this witness' credibility into question through cross-examination which presented inconsistencies in White Horse's testimony. The cross-examination also uncovered White Horse's plea agreement, conditional upon testifying against New. This strategy of the defendant opened the door for the introduction of the testimony of White Horse regarding his acquittal for the murder. State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1, 6 (S.D. 1992). Furthermore, New has failed to carry the burden of showing any actual prejudice resulting from the admission of this evidence. State v. Stetter, 513 N.W.2d 87, 90 (S.D.1994) (citations omitted). We do not find the trial court abused its discretion.