Court Opinion

ID: 9575557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:45.797189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:23.094372
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring specially and concurring in result).
I specifically concur in the majority’s holding on the first issue. The practical effect of instructions was to add an additional element of proof burdening the state, namely, the commission of intentional damage to property. If any prejudice flowed from the addition, it was to the State.
I cannot concur on Issues II and III. The change of venue motion should have been granted. Alternatively, the two jurors (Issue II) should have been excused. I cannot agree with the majority holding that no error occurred. I perhaps could be persuaded that the trial court’s errors were harmless (SDCL 23A-44-14; State v. Moves Camp, 376 N.W.2d 567 (S.D.1985); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575 (S.D.1985)), but I will not concede that the holdings were error free.