Opinion ID: 900626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bryan Crawford

Text: [¶ 43.] The State's strategy throughout the trial was to portray Drafahl as a nonviolent man with a peaceful reputation. During its case-in-chief, the State called Bryan Crawford as a witness. Prior to trial, Crawford made a statement reflecting that he felt that Drafahl did not have a reputation for violence. At trial, he vacillated and testified that prior to July 3, Drafahl did have a reputation for violence. The State used a portion of his statement to refresh Crawford's recollection. After reading his statement, Crawford simply explained that when he gave his prior statement, he had forgotten an incident which had occurred prior to July 3. [¶ 44.] In chambers, Blem requested permission to admit the complete page of the statement used to refresh Crawford's memory during cross-examination. He argued that the complete page would explain the inconsistency in Crawford's testimony. The critical portion of the testimony provided: David was  would talk about killing people. That he ... killed in fifty different ways.... The trial court refused to allow Blem to offer the page into evidence or to question Crawford about it. It further instructed that Blem could only ask Crawford whether Drafahl had a reputation for violence. [¶ 45.] Blem argues that the trial court committed reversible error in restricting his cross-examination of Crawford. He argues that under SDCL 19-12-6, on cross-examination, inquiry is allowed into relevant specific instances of conduct when proof of character or reputation is offered by a party. He also contends that the State opened the door and placed Drafahl's good character into issue; therefore, any inquiry into the victim's bad character is relevant and admissible. [¶ 46.] Under SDCL 19-12-4(2), evidence of the victim's character or a trait of his character is admissible to show he acted in conformity therewith to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. Generally, this pertinent trait of character is proven by testimony of the victim's reputation. Id. See State v. Latham, 519 N.W.2d 68, 71 (S.D.1994) (citations omitted). [¶ 47.] The State's strategy was to portray Drafahl as a nonviolent man, apparently in an effort to prove that he was not the aggressor. Thus, under SDCL 19-12-4(2), the State could present testimony concerning Drafahl's reputation as a peaceful man. It could also ask Crawford whether David Drafahl had a reputation for violence prior to July 3. Unexpectedly, Crawford replied, Yes, he did. The State attempted to impeach him with a portion of his prior statement. Blem wanted Crawford to explain to the jury why his testimony was not inconsistent; that is, that Drafahl would talk about killing people and that he had killed in fifty different ways. [¶ 48.] SDCL 19-12-6 provides: In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. (emphasis added). This statute plainly allows cross-examination into specific instances of conduct when a trait of character is admissible. [3] Therefore, the trial court clearly erred. Under the circumstances, this testimony is admissible, if necessary, for impeachment purposes on re-trial.