Court Opinion

ID: 9515125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:01.315542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:25.247941
License: Public Domain

*699SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[¶ 34.] I concur on Issues 1 and 2 but dissent on Issue 3. It seems clear that these “surveillance” videos were admitted to show that the defendant had a propensity to commit the offenses charged. This is contrary to SDCL 19-12-5, which provides in part:
Evidence of other ... acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.
[¶ 35.] That is exactly what happened in this case and the State’s claim of showing “intent” is mere pretense. Unfortunately, this will continue to happen until we force the State to do it over until they do it right.