Opinion ID: 2200750
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of venue of the rape prosecution in Minnehaha County.

Text: Turning to the substance of the venue issue, State urges that venue of the rape prosecution in Minnehaha County is based on SDCL 23A-16-8, which provides, [w]hen a public offense is committed partly in one county and partly in another county, or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the offense occur in two or more counties, the venue is in either county. State argues that Haase's acts of force, coercion and threats leading to the rape of the victim began in Sioux Falls and, therefore, part of the acts constituting the rape occurred in Minnehaha County. SDCL 22-22-1(1). Haase resists application of SDCL 23A-16-8 by arguing that the acts constituting the victim's kidnapping and her rape were divisible. He contends that the acts of force, coercion and threats directed toward the victim in Minnehaha County were related solely to her kidnapping. Haase maintains that all of the acts constituting the rape itself occurred in Lincoln County and, therefore, venue of the rape prosecution could only lie in that county. We strongly disagree with Haase's advocacy. As support for his argument, Haase relies on State v. Reed, 313 N.W.2d 788 (S.D.1981). Reed, like the present case, involved the abduction of a rape victim from within Rapid City to an abandoned farmstead outside of the city where the rape occurred. Reed was convicted of both kidnapping and rape. On appeal, Reed contended that he could not be convicted of both kidnapping and rape because the kidnapping was merely incidental to the rape. ( See State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860 (S.D.1979)). This court rejected Reed's contention stating that the seizure and removal of Reed's victim from Rapid City to the farmstead was, an entirely separate act from the act of forcible rape. Reed, 313 N.W.2d at 789.