Court Opinion

ID: 9697198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:08:32.705005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:29.925556
License: Public Domain

ZASTROW, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I would concur in the affirmance of the convictions of Lonnie Whiting and Vaughn Whiting because the evidence, though circumstantial, viewed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict supports the convictions.
However, the convictions of Royce Whiting, Dennis Runge, Becky Kapsch and Becky Bollack are not based upon the same circumstantial evidence and should be reversed. Each of the convictions is based upon circumstantial evidence that these four codefendants aided and abetted in the commission of the burglary of the South Side Liquor Store.
The rule is well established in South Dakota that to warrant a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, the facts and circumstances must be shown which are consistent with each other and with the guilt of the defendant, and of such character as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Shank, S.D., 226 N.W.2d 384; State v. Catlette, S.D., 221 N.W.2d 25; State v. Henry, 87 S.D. 454, 210 N.W.2d 169; State v. Scott, 84 S.D. 511, 173 N.W.2d 287; State v. McCreary, 82 S.D. 111, 142 N.W.2d 240.
Furthermore, a conviction as a principal for aiding and abetting must be proven by evidence which establishes that the defendant knowingly and with criminal intent aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates by act or advice the commission of the crime. State v. Nelson, S.D., 220 N.W.2d 2; United States v. Thomas, 8 Cir., 469 F.2d 145. Mere association between the principal and the party accused of aiding and abetting is not sufficient, nor is mere presence at the scene and knowledge that the crime was to be committed sufficient to establish aiding and abetting. Snyder v. United States, 8 Cir., 448 F.2d 716. It is true that presence and companionship may support a finding *882of guilt, but only if it is supported by other facts and circumstances. State v. Bonrud, S.D., 246 N.W.2d 790; State v. Anderberg, S.D., 228 N.W.2d 631; State v. Nelson, supra; State v. Henry, supra; State v. McCreary, supra; State v. Peck, 82 S.D. 561, 150 N.W.2d 725.
In each of the cases where the presence of the defendant was used as support for a conviction, the facts and circumstances strongly suggest an active participation in the criminal conduct. However, in State v. McCreary, supra, this court reversed the conviction of one of the codefendants who was seated in the getaway vehicle during the burglary. The evidence against the four codefendants here is certainly no stronger than the evidence in McCreary.
The majority opinion recognizes the closeness of the sufficiency of the evidence against these four codefendants. However, it rests the affirmance upon the “inference” that carrying seventy loose cans of Budweiser a distance of one and one-half blocks required a group effort. The facts simply do not support such an inference.
The police found two sets of distinctive boot impressions along the path where loose Budweiser cans were found. The size of the impressions (13½" and 14½" long) matched those which would be made by the boots worn by Lonnie and Vaughn Whiting. No impressions were discovered or identified as belonging to any of the other defendants. Although carrying seventy loose beer cans might appear to be-a problem for two people, the evidence appears to indicate that it would not be (iso for Lonnie and Vaughn Whiting. Each stood 6'8'' and weighed three hundred pounds or more; each had a denim jacket; however, Lonnie was not wearing his at the time of arrest, it being wrapped around the beer cans found in the car. The facts and circumstances would seem to infer that burglary was perpetrated by Lonnie and Vaughn Whiting without the assistance of the others.
The only evidence of guilt against the four codefendants would appear to be companionship with the perpetrators before the crime, and the evidence does show that Dennis Runge, Becky Kapsch, and Royce Whiting were in the company of Lonnie and Vaughn Whiting after the burglary. There is simply no evidence that Becky Bollack was at the scene of the arrest. She was seen five blocks from the scene of the arrest by the police officer who had stopped the car. The police officer did not, however, identify her as being the woman who had walked away from the scene of the arrest. The majority opinion states that Becky Bol-lack owned the car, but this is not supported by the settled record. A vehicle registration slip was marked and identified by the Davison County treasurer. It was not offered as an exhibit nor received as evidence; it should not at this time be considered by this court as evidence to support her conviction. The evidence of companionship and presence one and one-half blocks from the scene is insufficient to uphold the convictions on the theory of aiding and abetting.
Although it is possible that the evidence could support a conviction of the four code-fendants as accessories after the fact under SDCL 22-3-5, we need not decide that issue-since they were not charged as accessories. A defendant should not, however, be convicted as a principal (nor that conviction affirmed) on the theory of aiding and abetting for conduct which would make him only an accessory after the fact. State v. Barnes, Iowa, 204 N.W.2d 827.
The trial court also gave several instructions on “inferences” which the jury could draw from certain facts. These instructions were apparently based upon the inferences drawn by the court in State v. Peck, supra, in affirming the conviction in that case. However, the inferences stated therein were not intended to be given as jury instructions. They are inferences drawn by the appellate court in considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. In doing so, the appellate court is under a duty to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and to accept all reasonable inferences tending to support the verdict. State v. Best, S.D., 232 N.W.2d 447. That an inference may be *883made by the Supreme Court based upon the facts of a ease does not make such an inference a rule of law which should be given as an instruction. The instructions on inferences given to the jury in this case totally negated the court’s proper instructions on the circumstantial evidence, burden of proof and mere presence. As to the four codefendants, the inference instructions were prejudicial error. Because the inference instructions did not relate to Lonnie and Vaughn Whiting, the error does not appear to be prejudicial.
I join in Justice Porter’s dissent as it relates to the issue of separate trials and the sufficiency of evidence against Becky Bollack and Becky Kapsch.