Court Opinion

ID: 9663869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:53:56.847537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:37.042887
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Here, the state’s attorney deliberately withheld the witness’ names and the accused was substantially prejudiced.
Clay County State's Attorney, by his own admission on the record, fashioned his own criminal procedure in derogation of SDCL 23A-6-10. He set himself above the law; he knew he was not following the state law. Theodore Roosevelt once expressed: “No man is above nor beneath the Law.”
Clay County State’s Attorney abused his office and abused legal process. He admitted he withheld the witness’ names in this case which he tried to excuse by expressing he “always did it this way.” Obviously, this is an unjustifiable reason. He expressed on the record, that he withholds the names of witnesses waiting for the possibility of a plea bargain, of his own choosing. He expressed he did not want to take the time to make an Information accurate or thorough.
Should this Court reward such a practice? No. It should condemn it, not condone it.
Apparently, Mr. State’s Attorney of Clay County has a rather cavalier practice of endorsing the witness’ names on the Information on the morning of trial. He freely admits to it.
Where does this leave defense counsel? How can any defense counsel adequately prepare a defense when he is taken by surprise on the morning of trial? The answer is: he cannot; defense counsel is caught flat-footed. Approving Mr. State’s Attorney’s conduct here licenses every State’s Attorney to similarly act in South Dakota. Intentional violation of a state statute, thereby depriving a defense lawyer in preparing an adequate defense, is detrimental to a defendant obtaining a fair trial. U.S. ConstAmend. VI and S.D. Const.Art. VI, § 7. It is against the spirit of the Law.
A continuance should have been granted by the trial court. It was not. This lawyer and his client were not treated fair because *40the State’s Attorney’s action denied this defendant an adequate time to adequately prepare for trial. This type of prosecutorial conduct invites ineffective assistance of counsel. It invites defective performance. Trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance. State v. Huettl, 379 N.W.2d 298 (S.D.1985) *; State v. Wolford, 318 N.W.2d 7 (S.D.1982).
Any citizen has the right of freedom from the deliberate misuse of legal process, the law, and the courts. Such a freedom includes Kevin White Mountain.
Unfair? Well, pardner, the trial began on November 15, 1990; on November 13, 1990, Mr. State’s Attorney filed an Amended Information with nine new witnesses. On late Monday, November 13, 1990, defense counsel was notified of this. There was no way possible for the defense lawyer to (a) find these witnesses and (b) interview them before the cock crowed his clarion call as the sun rose in Clay County, in the early morning on the day of trial.
I am authorized to state that Justice WUEST joins in this dissent.

 In Huettl, at 298 and 303, we declared:
[A] late endorsement of [a] witness may be allowed in [the] trial court’s discretion, and in the absence of some showing that State’s Attorney acted in bad faith or abused his position in deliberately withholding the name of the witness and that the accused was substantially prejudiced, admission of the testimony will not constitute grounds for reversal, (emphasis supplied mine).