Opinion ID: 901906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony from Tami's Mother

Text: [¶ 29.] Tami's mother, Bonnie, testified for the State on a number of things, including the conversations she had with Haylee the day Tami went missing. On cross examination, defendant asked Bonnie about a statement she made to the Department of Social Services that she was surprised by how calm Haylee was the day Tami went missing because Haylee was normally a very emotional child. On re-direct examination, the State asked Bonnie about her experience with a similar situation in her family that allowed her to see people's reactions. Defendant objected, claiming that Bonnie's testimony about a previous tragedy was irrelevant, only worked to evoke sympathy from the jury, and was unfairly prejudicial. [¶ 30.] The court allowed the following testimony: State's counsel, Mr. Love: Is this the first time in your life that you have had the opportunity to see somebody go through this experience? Bonnie: No. Defense counsel, Mr. Rensch: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. The court: Overruled. You may answer. Mr. Love: How have you seen this before? Mr. Rensch: Objection. Relevance. The court: Counsel approach. (A bench conference was held but not reported.) The court: You may continue, Mr. Love. Mr. Rensch: For the record, my objection also included [Rule] 403. The court: Thank you. I've done the balancing test and I do not find it unfairly prejudicial. You may answer. Do you recall the question? Bonnie: Could you repeat that? Mr. Love: You've described Haylee's reactions and your sense of Haylee's reactions to this situation. Have you had the opportunity to see this situation before? Bonnie: Yes. Mr. Love: And persons' reactions to that situation? Bonnie: You're asking me how I Mr. Love: Have you had a chance to see other people's reactions to a similar situation in the past? Bonnie: Yes. Mr. Love: Was that an event that took place within your family? Bonnie: Yes. Mr. Rensch: Same objection, Your Honor. The court: So noted. Overruled. The answer will stand. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Bonnie to testify about a previous tragedy in her family, on the grounds that the testimony was explosive, tainted juror perceptions, and was persuasion by illegitimate means. Defendant claims that the great weight of this prejudicial testimony necessitates a new trial. [¶ 31.] A court has wide discretion in determining the prejudicial effect of a witness' statements[.] State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 818 (S.D.1987) (citing State v. Farley, 290 N.W.2d 491, 494 (S.D.1980)). Thus, we review a court's decision to admit such testimony under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Lassiter, 2005 SD 8, ¶ 13, 692 N.W.2d 171, 175 (citing State v. Red Star, 2001 SD 54, ¶ 10, 625 N.W.2d 573, 576-77). However, [t]o obtain a new trial, a defendant must prove not only that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence, but also that the admission resulted in prejudice. Id. (citing Red Star, 2001 SD 54, ¶ 10, 625 N.W.2d at 577 (citing SDCL 15-6-61)). `Prejudicial error' is error which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the jury's verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d at 818-819 (citing State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 498 (S.D.1986); State v. Reddington, 80 S.D. 390, 396, 125 N.W.2d 58, 62 (1964)). [¶ 32.] The State contends that Bonnie's testimony was properly allowed. It argues that defendant opened the door to this line of questioning by squarely placing Haylee's reaction to Tami's death, and Bonnie's ability to judge that reaction before the jury. While Bonnie's ability to judge Haylee's emotions and temperament might be relevant, Bonnie's ability to gauge other people's reactions to a previous family tragedy is not. There is no link to Bonnie's previous family tragedy and Haylee. The court abused its discretion when it allowed this testimony. However, the statements ultimately made by Bonnie cannot be said to have produced some effect on the jury's verdict[.] See id. (citations omitted). Bonnie never testified to the specifics of the tragedy suffered by her family. And, the State made no further effort to exploit the facts surrounding Bonnie's previous experience.