Opinion ID: 2183938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Similar Offenses.

Text: The defendant's next major contention is that the trial court erred in allowing production of evidence of similar offenses of the defendant committed at approximately the same time. The cases of this court, however, definitively establish that such evidence of similar offenses is admissible to show motive, a common plan or scheme, or modus operandi. In State v. Long, 1971, 85 S.D. 431, 185 N.W.2d 472, this court said: Evidence of other break-ins in the canyon and of property removed from these places by defendants was admissible to show the motive for the break-ins, their criminal intent (which they denied) as well as common plan, scheme or system of breaking in unoccupied cabins. State v. Blake, 1968, 83 S.D. 359, 159 N.W.2d 803, is to the same effect. The defendant cites State v. McCreary, 1966, 82 S.D. 111, 142 N.W.2d 240, as authority that such evidence is not admissible. However, this case merely stands for the proposition that when evidence of another crime tends only to show bad character and has no connection with the crime charged, it may not be introduced. The court in the same case cites with approval language from 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 691(7) which states that evidence as to other crimes is admissible to show motive, guilty knowledge, a regular or similar system, or a common scheme or plan, or modus operandi  . 142 N.W.2d at 244-245. It appears to this court that the evidence of other break-ins was properly admitted under the common plan or scheme and modus operandi and the defendant's objection thereto fails.