Court Opinion

ID: 9738557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:56:09.917345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.899872
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
On Issue I, the state should be more careful in selecting language that more appropriately fits the charge, otherwise unnecessary confusion could result and mislead future defendants in similar circumstances.
Interestingly, on Issue III, the trial court excluded evidence of two prior burglaries of the dentist’s office. This denial is being affirmed on the basis that the testimony would only serve to mislead the jury and confuse the issues. I concur in result because the defendant should be permitted to offer evidence to support his defense, whatever it is.
On Issue IV, the trial court should have instructed the jury that the value of the burned property had to exceed $25.00. SDCL 22-33-3. However, the evidence clearly did and I concur in result because the evidence was sufficient to sustain all of the convictions.