Court Opinion

ID: 9686160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:31:47.121732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.557470
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
Inasmuch as this Court is reversing the enhancement aspect of this case, it would not be necessary to address Clothier’s contentions that she was entitled to “another jury” on the habitual offender charge. See State v. Moves Camp, 376 N.W.2d 567, 570 (S.D.1985). In Moves Camp, there was no record of any request for another jury. Here, there was. However, we are reversing the enhancement penalty (ten years), and thus we need not address the issue foursquare. In my opinion, the South Dakota Supreme Court has never ruled on the precise issue of “another jury.” It has, however, been addressed by the State of Michigan in People v. Schram, 98 Mich. App. 292, 302, 296 N.W.2d 840, 845 (1980).