Court Opinion

ID: 9524441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:52:42.187226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:22.743369
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(specially concurring).
Even though Jaques is not able to establish a specific violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment to *268the United States Constitution or- similar provisions of the South Dakota Constitution, the jailer should have known that the note from Sitting Crow, which he delivered to Jaques, would induce a response. From the content of Sitting Crow's note, the jailer should have known that Jaques’ response would be culpatory, if not incriminating. The substance of the note was devastating to Jaques’ position. It essentially handcuffed his attorney’s argument to the jury because, in effect, it stated that Ja-ques told his attorney the truth and that in response to this truth Jaques’ attorney told him that he would be imprisoned for his conduct. Though the substance of this note was not very probative of any specifics, it was extremely prejudicial to Jaques’ defense of self-defense or justifiable homicide. For these reasons, the note should have been excluded from the jury under these circumstances.