Opinion ID: 1844253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss brown's indictment for prosecutorial misconduct?

Text: SDCL 22-11-10 provides: Any person who accepts, or offers or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit as consideration for: (1) Refraining from seeking prosecution of an offender; or (2) Refraining from reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission or suspected commission of any crime or information relating to a crime; is guilty of compounding. Compounding a felony is a Class 6 felony. Compounding a misdemeanor is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Brown argued before the trial court that an offer by the special prosecutor to reduce the charge against him in exchange for CMC's payment of certain financial indebtedness constituted compounding as defined above and resulted in misconduct by the special prosecutor. Brown moved for a dismissal of his indictment on this basis and now appeals the trial court's denial of that motion. This argument is lacking in merit. SDCL 22-11-10, prohibits only the receipt of consideration for refraining from a criminal prosecution. State v. Ventling, 452 N.W.2d 123, 125 (S.D.1990) (emphasis added). Under SDCL 22-11-10, all phases of a person's receipt of consideration for refraining from a criminal prosecution are prohibited. This includes actual acceptance of consideration, an agreement to accept consideration in response to the offer of another, and initiation of the offense by contacting another and `offering to accept' consideration. Id. (emphasis original). There is no evidence in this case whatsoever that the special prosecutor ever offered to receive consideration from Brown. Rather, the plea offer was that Brown see to CMC's payment of its indebtedness to certain creditors in exchange for a reduction of charges. There is no evidence that the special prosecutor was a creditor of CMC. Thus, in no manner did the plea offer fall within the elements of the offense of compounding as this court defined them in Ventling, supra . Accordingly, we find no error by the trial court in denial of Brown's motion for a dismissal of charges based upon prosecutorial misconduct. Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., concurs. HENDERSON, J., concurs in part and specially concurs in part. SABERS, and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur in result.