Court Opinion

ID: 9579670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:57:18.580964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:39.878056
License: Public Domain

*246SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I join Justice Amundson’s dissent. The evidence of this later rape should have been excluded because the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (SDCL 19-12-3 (Rule 403)). The unfair prejudice arising from the detailed evidence of this later rape is so overwhelming it makes any probative value minute by comparison. How can the defendant possibly get a fair trial on the charged act when these incredibly prejudicial details are so dominant in the mind of the jury? He simply can not. We should reverse and remand for a fair trial. See SDCL 19-12-3.