Court Opinion

ID: 9849466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:40:33.583493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:25.295686
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
PREJUDICIAL JOINDER
The business of the courts is not efficiency. The business of the courts is not economy. The business of the courts is to mete out justice. If it can be done with efficiency and economy, surely that road should be journeyed. However, if economy and efficiency preclude the fair administration of justice, they must take the low road, while justice takes the high road. In this case, efficiency and economy took the high road, while justice took a backseat on the low road. I am referring to the failure of the trial court to sever the trials of No Heart and Williams.
SDCL 23A-11-2 provides: “If it appears that a defendant ... is prejudiced by a joinder ... of defendants ... for trial together, the court may order ... separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.... ” Under this provision, appellant Williams made a motion for severance based upon the opening statement of No Heart’s attorney and the cross-examination of the State’s first two witnesses by No Heart’s attorney. At this point, it became apparent that No Heart and Williams had inconsistent defenses. Appellant Williams contends it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to sever her trial from that of No Heart, and that she was prejudiced as á result. I agree. Under the facts of this case, I would reverse and grant appellant a separate trial.
“Notwithstanding the need for efficiency, a joint trial is inappropriate if it sacrifices a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860, 866 (S.D.1979). In this instance, highly prejudicial evidence obtained from the motel room was admitted at trial against appellant’s codefendant, No Heart. The evidence was not admitted against Williams because there was nothing in this evidence which would link her to the motel room. As the majority opinion points out, admission of evidence against only one of several defendants does not on its own create sufficient prejudice to justify reversing the trial court. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860. However, this evidence, coupled with the defense testimony of No Heart implicating Williams and placing her in the motel room, clearly jeopardized her chance for a fair trial. Any cautionary instruction with regard to this evidence would be highly ineffective and would not overcome the fact that the State was able to indirectly apply *50damaging evidence toward Williams through the testimony of her codefendant No Heart — although it could not do so directly.
Further, when it became obvious that No Heart, through his defense attorney, had a trial strategy of attempting to depict to the jury that he was engaged in a fight, but that Williams and Rachel High Elk stole the wallet, at that evidentiary instant, real and actual prejudice began to set in. Williams had a totally inconsistent defense with such a portrayal of the facts and her entire defense was antagonistic to her co-defendant. Thenceforward on, it was manifestly unfair for Williams to be tried with No Heart. Without the testimony of No Heart, the State could not place appellant Williams in Motel Room # 22. When No Heart took the stand in his own defense and gave this testimony, he forced appellant Williams to do likewise, despite her right and intention not to do so, solely because of the adverse inference that would be drawn from her failure to testify in light of No Heart's implications. In Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860, such a circumstance was specifically held to warrant a separate trial.
I find, under these facts, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for severance.
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A guest in a motel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856, provided he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Under the circumstances of this case, appellant No Heart’s expectation of privacy in Motel Room # 22 was reasonable and legitimate, and was in no way lessened by the error surrounding the occupancy of the room.
No Heart registered and paid for a motel room. He was given a key to (what he thought was) Room # 23 and was directed to a particular door. There was no room number marking on this door. In fact, all of the room numbers were poorly illuminated and difficult to identify. The key would not open the door to the designated room. Upon the suggestion of his companion, No Heart tried the key on the door adjacent, thinking that, perhaps, the wrong room had been indicated. Sure enough, the key opened the door to what was later found to be Room #22. No Heart and his companions occupied that room.
No Heart did not know, nor did he have any reason to suspect, that he was in the wrong motel room. At no time was he aware that he was in other than the room he had registered and paid for.
Though these facts are unusual, they in no way detract from appellant No Heart’s legitimate expectation that his room would be free from an illegal search. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Stoner, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856. The circumstances surrounding the occupancy of the room did not vitiate his privacy interest therein. United States v. Lyons, 706 F.2d 321 (C.A.D.C.1983).
Further, it was not by happenstance that the motel manager directed the police to search Room # 22. It is clear by the record that the officers came to the motel, not at the manager’s request, but in the course of pursuing their investigation and looking for No Heart. The police entered the room specifically in search of appellant No Heart, and not just to investigate the peculiarity of a light in a supposedly unoccupied room.
I would not distinguish this case from Stoner, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856, as the majority has done. This search was conducted without a warrant and without appellant No Heart’s consent, and did not become lawful because conducted with the consent of the motel manager to either enter or search the room. The protection of the Fourth Amendment “would disappear if it were left to depend upon the unfettered discretion of an employee of the [motel]. It follows that this search without a warrant was unlawful.” Stoner, 376 U.S. at 490, *5184 S.Ct. at 893, 11 L.Ed.2d at 861. The articles found in the motel room should not have been entered into evidence. In sum, this search was conducted without a warrant of a motel room, rented and occupied by No Heart, and the Fourth Amendment protects that room and its lessee from a search and seizure absent an accompanying search warrant based upon probable cause.
I take note that on June 11, 1984, in Nix v. Williams, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case, the Supreme Court adopted an inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. In essence, it was held that if illegally obtained evidence would have inevitably been discovered despite the taint of illegality, no rational basis could exist for excluding that evidence. Under the circumstances of No Heart, there would have to be a factual determination below that regardless of any overreaching by the police, the evidence would have inevitably been obtained by legitimate means.