Court Opinion

ID: 9663534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:41:57.382081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:51.481150
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Thoughts, reasons, rationale, federal cases, treatises, law review articles, United States Constitutional provisions, South Dakota Constitutional provisions, applicable state statutes, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, and American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice have all been cited by this writer in his continuing disagreement with the South Dakota Supreme Court’s decisions on severance. Without therefore waxing into the details of these various authorities, suffice it to say that this writer has dissented on the issue of severance in such cases, inter alia, as State v. Honomichl, 410 N.W.2d 544, 550 (S.D.1987); State v. Weddell, 410 N.W.2d 553, 557 (S.D.1987); State v. Maves, 358 N.W.2d 805, 811 (S.D.1984); State v. No Heart, 353 N.W.2d 43, 49 (S.D.1984); and State v. Iron Shell, 336 N.W.2d 372, 377 (S.D.1983). Based upon all of the authorities and writings, I dissent once again believing that the severance of defendants in a criminal trial should be the general rule rather than the exception. In South Dakota, for all practical purposes, we have abandoned the concept that there can be prejudicial joinder. For the author of the majority opinion to compare this case with Sitting Crow and Jaques, wherein I was the majority writer, is totally an academic wrong. In Sitting Crow and Ja-ques, neither codefendant denied participating in the crime of beating the victim to death; both claimed that it was justified. In the case before us, both parties are saying “I didn’t do it, he did it.” Quite a difference!
The contrast between the Sitting Crow!Jaques scenario and Jenner’s predicament is obvious. Elliot’s defense posited that he was present but was not a participant in Sjong’s killing, which was carried out by Jenner. Jenner’s defense, on the other hand, was that Jenner was not present at all, but his testimony implicated Elliot. Unlike Sitting Crow/Jaques, the defenses here are antagonistic and resulted in real prejudice. See Jaques, 428 N.W.2d at 267; Sitting Crow, 428 N.W.2d at 270. There can be no doubt that, without Elliot’s testimony, a conviction against Jenner would have been far more difficult to obtain for the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Evidence reflected that there was no blood on Jenner’s clothing, or his fingerprints on any weapon, nor any witness that Jenner left the KOA campground with Sjong and returned without him. Elliot, on the other hand, had blood on his clothes, which was consistent with the back spray of blood from the high-velocity impact of a bullet striking a person, and of the same blood type as the victim, Sjong. Codefendant Elliot was the State’s best witness against Jenner, making a fair trial impossible. See United States v. Crawford, 581 F.2d 489 (5th Cir.1978). Where, “[l]ike the wretches in Dante’s hell, they may become entangled and ultimately fuse together in the eyes of the jury.... [T]he trial judge abuses its discretion in failing to sever the trials of the co-defendants.” United States v. Romanello, 726 F.2d 173, 174 (5th Cir.1984).
After the opening statements by all counsel (defense tables previously together), tables, defense counsel, and defendants separated. The war was on between the two defendants. Elliot (codefendant) became the State’s best witness. Attorney Baumann, rather emotionally, told the Highest Court of this State, during argument, “We were prepared to defend against the State but not Elliot and his counsel.” As determined by the Crawford Court, the defenses asserted by the code-fendants were antagonistic, irreconcilable, as well as mutually exclusive.
In my Weddell dissent, 410 N.W.2d 559 nn. 6 & 7, I pointed out what constitutes “irreconcilable” and “antagonistic”; sure*84ly, the Weddell opinion expanded our language in No Heart, 353 N.W.2d at 47, to adopt a very tough rule set forth in United States v. Boyd, 610 F.2d 521, 526 (8th Cir.1979). As an appellate Justice, my job is not to affirm convictions by rote. I am not a chattel for the state, sitting in our state capítol, to affirm criminal convictions by automatic thought process. In Weddell, I went to great lengths to explain the duality of functions in an appellate court. First, we review the trial court’s ruling for correctness, or at least within a range of error of law which appellate courts seemingly permit the first decision-maker. Secondly, we should involve ourselves in institutional review realizing that trial courts work independently in our state and have no self-regulating capacity to promote uniformity among the various decisions in the circuits. Legal principles, present in this Court, developed over a period of decades, must be recognized so that lawyers and trial judges can predict just how a judge is going to apply the power he has as a trial judge. Within the ambit of that duality, each and every defendant is guaranteed a fair trial. U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; S.D. Const, art. VI, § 2. We cannot expect trials to be perfect, but they must be fair. See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1570, 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 (1973). Nor is it my job to jump into the jury box and decide factual questions, such as: Is Jenner guilty? That is up to the jury. But it is my job to see that criminal defendants have a fair trial. I would reverse these convictions and send this case back for a retrial where Jenner and his lawyer would not be sitting at the table with another accuser, namely Elliot, and a lawyer representing Elliot, the latter doing everything within his legal ability and power to try to pin the crime on Jenner. Prejudice occurred here by this joint trial. The jury could infer guilt quite rationally because of Elliot and his lawyer’s advocacy on behalf of the State. What a position for a prosecutor to be in! He or she can sit in the trial chair and watch each defendant tear away at the other’s defense, watch each defendant blame the other for the offense, and sit there — the recipient of rough and tumble advocacy both working in his/her favor. In Weddell, I referred to how an old ballplayer learns, early, and perhaps I should have said “young” ballplayer, that one must play fairly by a set of rules, and I mentioned that our court system can survive only by playing according to the rules to achieve fairness. So I will conclude my writing by stating that when the ball game begins, the score should be zero to zero. Here, the score was not zero to zero. The score was weighted in favor of the State before the ball game began. And that runs against the grain of an old ballplayer who has been elevated to the Highest Court of this State by its people on two occasions.