Court Opinion

ID: 9528925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:45:18.991012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:28.373524
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(specially concurring).
The trial court did not err in admitting victim’s testimony of the “french kiss” when she was approximately eight years of age. As stated in my dissent in State v. Champagne, 422 N.W.2d 840, 845-46 (S.D.1988):
Other courts have acknowledged that as to evidence of other occurrences a distinction exists between sexual molestation eases and other crimes. See State v. Friedrich, 135 Wis.2d 1, 398 N.W.2d 763 (1987). However, this distinction and the greater latitude given to admission of prior bad acts in sex crimes is and should be exercised only in the context of same *419defendant/same victim. The rationale for creating the distinction is that the victim’s testimony as to prior similar acts by the defendant is necessary to “disc-los[e] the relationship between the parties, [the] opportunity and inclination to commit the act complained of, and [to] corroborate] ... the specific charge.” State v. Haala, 415 N.W.2d 69, 77 (Minn. App.1987). Testimony by the victim, but not by her step-sister, as to prior instances of sexual contact by the defendant may be relevant to the issue of intent in a charge for a violation of SDCL 22-22-7. (Emphasis in original).
Testimony by the victims about defendant’s prior similar acts against the victims, but not against others, may be necessary to disclose the relationship between the parties. Id.