Court Opinion

ID: 9852108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:24:38.263939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:22.628340
License: Public Domain

PORTER, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur specially in the affirmance of the conviction, on the following grounds:
I.Because appellant failed to make timely objection in the trial court, and therefore the issue was not presented to the trial court, I would hold that the following issues are not before this court upon the merits:
(a) Refusal of the trial court to require disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant;
(b) presentation of testimony revealing that appellant had committed other criminal offenses unrelated to the offense for which he was on trial;
(c) refusal of the trial court to require removal of handcuffs from defendant’s witness Husen before Husen took the stand as defendant’s witness.
II. The jury were entitled to believe defendant’s alleged oral confession, and we must view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the State. The evidence so viewed establishes that defendant aided and abetted in the robbery and that the confederate used a handgun. In State v. McCreary, 82 S.D. 111, 142 N.W.2d 240 (1966), this court properly reversed for error in admission of a pistol, but placed some emphasis on the fact that the robbery of the telephone coin box did not involve use of a firearm, and the error in admission there was thus compounded. A handgun was used in this robbery, and defendant confessed his participation in the robbery. I do not find McCreary applicable and am unable to conclude in the face of the confession evidence that receipt or nonreceipt of the handgun in evidence would have made much difference in the outcome in this case. I do agree that the handgun in this case was not properly connected with the defendant, and thus should not have been admitted, but find it not to constitute prejudicial error. I note, also, that this defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery, which the trial court instructed the jury was a robbery committed without the use of force or the placing of the robbed persons in fear. In effect the defendant was convicted of a non-armed robbery.
III. The failure of defendant’s trial counsel to move to suppress the oral confession and failure to move for disclosure of the name of the confidential informant may present an issue of denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Cf. State v. Mullins, S.D., 260 N.W.2d 628. Whether such a contention can be supported upon a more complete post-conviction record is not before us. I cannot find this record on direct appeal sufficient to sustain defendant’s claim in that regard.