Court Opinion

ID: 9686490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:51:03.37723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.302095
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
Per the majority opinion, this state’s Fifth Amendment constitutional provision and the Fifth Amendment of the National Constitution contain identical language. This is false. Note that S.D. Const, art. VI, § 9, uses the language: “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself.... ”; whereas, the National Constitution, Bill of Rights, prescribes: “nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself....” (Emphasis supplied.) Constitutional scholars, in many states, have recognized the differences in the language, believing the language such as that contained in South Dakota’s constitution provides a broader protection for the citizens of a particular sovereign. This was the subject of distinguishment, by this special writer, in State v. Hoenscheid, 374 N.W.2d 128, 132-33 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and State v. Neville (II), 346 N.W.2d 425, 432 (S.D.1984) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I further concur in the result of this writing, as it cites State v. Roadifer, 346 N.W.2d 438 (S.D.1984), in which I also concurred in result because of the broad language therein contained which seemed, by decisional law once again in this state, to cut back on constitutional rights of the people of the State of South Dakota.
In the instant case, appellant’s counsel admitted on page 14 of the brief: “[Tjhat the intrusion involved in taking a blood sample is minimal.” Concluding, appellant’s counsel reflects: “In this way, this case is like Schmerber v. California, [384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) ]. However, unlike Schmerber, there is no need for the blood sample.” I agree with the majority opinion that there was a need, contrary to appellant’s brief, for the blood test in view of the fact that one cigarette butt tested negative. Without the blood test, a jury might well have speculated to the detriment of the State’s *875proof. Also, in considering the settled law that the taking of blood from the body is a minimal intrusion, appellant’s arguments are not compelling.