Opinion ID: 2224380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Only the facts relevant to this appeal will be recited. Witchey and Anita Witchey (Anita) were married in October 1976. In the fall of 1979, D.W. was a student living in Aberdeen, South Dakota. She also worked part time as a waitress at the Holiday Inn in Aberdeen. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on October 6, 1979, while exiting her car after work, she was forcibly abducted and raped by an assailant she did not know. D.W. immediately reported the rape to law enforcement officials; the investigation produced no suspects at the time. Witchey and Anita were divorced in April 1981. In November 1984 Anita was contacted by detective Glen Spitzer (Spitzer) of the Aberdeen Police Department concerning an attempted rape allegation unrelated to the rape of D.W. During the conversation Anita informed the detective that Witchey had been the perpetrator of a rape in Aberdeen in 1979. Based upon the information supplied by Anita the alleged rape of D.W. was investigated further, and led to the arrest of Witchey on January 2, 1985, more than six years after the incident. Between the months of July and November 1984, D.W. was employed as a cocktail waitress at the Silver Dollar Bar in Aberdeen. During this time period, she cashed three checks drawn on three separate occasions by Witchey to pay for drinks. She therefore saw Witchey on at least three occasions after the rape but did not recognize him as her assailant. Law enforcement did not conduct an investigatory pretrial lineup, nor was a pretrial identification process requested by George Rice (Rice), Witchey's counsel. At the preliminary hearing and again at trial, D.W. identified Witchey as her assailant. Prior to trial, Rice moved to suppress the expected testimony of Anita under the marital communication privilege. The motion was granted by the trial court, and the state appealed the ruling. This Court held in State v. Witchey, 388 N.W.2d 893 (S.D. 1986) that the communications at issue were not privileged because the communications concerned a crime in which Witchey and Anita were joint participants. Rice also moved to suppress the testimony of Anita as to certain other bad acts of Witchey pursuant to SDCL 19-12-5. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that she could testify regarding the cruising of bars by Witchey to look for women and follow them, concluding that such evidence was relevant and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. At trial, detective Spitzer was called as a witness by the state, and was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q: Now, Detective Spitzer, I will now call your attention to approximately November 20th of 1984. Did you then have an occasion to talk to Anita Witchey at that time? A: Yes. Q: Now, did you go to Anita Witchey to talk to her? Did she contact you? A: I went to Anita Witchey. Q: What was the reason you contacted Anita Witchey? A: Because we were investigating an assault, attempted rape that had happened to a [L.M.] on November 18th of 1984. Q: What was the reason that you went to Anita Witchey? A: Because [L.M.] referred us to Anita Witchey. Q: What time was that? A: It was on November 20th of 1984. I believe we talked to her approximately 10:30 in the morning. Q: And when did the attempted rape occur on [L.M.]? A: November 18th of 1984. Q: So you were doing a follow-up investigation on this attempted rape of [L.M.]? A: Yes. Q: Were you able to find Anita Witchey? A: Yes. Q: Did you talk to her? A: Yes. Q: What were you particularly interested in at the time you talked to Anita Witchey on November 20, 1984? A: To get some background information concerning her ex-husband, Joel. Q: Why did you want this background information? A: Because [L.M.] had told us that Joel Witchey would possibly match the description of the person who attacked her. Q: When you went to talk to Anita Witchey, was she able to provide you any background information concerning the defendant? A: Yes. Q: What did she tell you at the time? MR. RICE: Objection. Any conversation between Anita Witchey and Officer Spitzer as hearsay, not binding on the defendant. THE COURT: Why would that be hearsay and inadmissible? STATE'S ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I am not offering this testimony to prove the truth of the matter. I am merely offering this testimony for the chronology of the investigation. THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection as to specific conversation. The prosecutor, through detective Spitzer, attempted to offer into evidence a statement given by Anita to law enforcement on December 7, 1984. Defense counsel objected to the offer, which objection was sustained by the trial court. At trial, Anita testified that she and her husband went to Aberdeen on 25 or 30 occasions and that Witchey would look for and follow women for the purposes of having sex with them. She also testified that the alleged rape of D.W. occurred in October of 1979; defense counsel pointed out on cross-examination that in her written statement, she alleged that the rape occurred in October of 1978. The prosecutor thereafter recalled the investigating officer in an attempt to explain the inconsistency; the statement was reoffered at the close of the officer's testimony and received without objection. After trial, on January 5, 1987, Rice conversed with Witchey about an appeal of the conviction. He informed Witchey that in his opinion no appealable issue existed because of the strong testimony of the victim and Anita, and that if Witchey was successful on appeal and then reconvicted he would face the possibility of an enhanced sentence. Witchey told Rice that he did not wish to appeal. On January 7, 1987, the court sentenced Witchey and advised him of his right to appeal, the appropriate time limitation, and his right to an attorney on appeal. On January 8, 1987, Rice mailed a letter to Witchey confirming their conversation of January 5th. The letter recited that if an appeal were taken, it must be commenced within thirty days. Witchey contends that he mailed a letter to Rice on January 11, 1987, advising that he had changed his mind and wished to appeal. Rice denies having received the letter. On January 15, 1987, Rice petitioned to withdraw as attorney of record and mailed a copy of the petition, a notice of hearing thereon, and a letter of explanation to Witchey. Hearing on the petition to withdraw was held on January 20, 1987. Witchey did not respond to the petition, either in person or in writing. He contends that he attempted to make arrangements with the prison officials to attend the January 20th hearing, but was not allowed to do so. The court allowed Rice to withdraw by order dated January 26, 1987.