Court Opinion

ID: 9730977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:29:43.904591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:11.857489
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
Without question, this jury was instructed wrong on a critical issue of law for, over Darrow’s objection, the jury was instructed that specific intent on the part of Schu-macher had to be established by a preponderance of evidence before Darrow could prevail on his § 1983 claim against Schu-macher (Instruction No. 12).
Majority admits this for it expresses: “Clearly, under Graham, the jury instruction on specific intent should not have been given.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).
Majority then tries to wipe this error away by using an old point of law in this Court which expresses that: “We must look at the jury instructions as a whole to determine if error was committed.” Precisely, that’s the point. However, majority fails to look at the jury instructions “as a whole.” In addition to jury Instruction No. 10, jury Instruction No. 11 required Darrow to establish “knowingly” and “wilfully performed acts.” Jury Instruction No. 12 expanded upon “knowingly” and “intentionally” and again required Darrow to prove “specific intent.” Thus, there were three bad instructions and “as a whole,” error was committed.
Majority fails to consider the following: Prejudicial error is that which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the final result and affected rights of the party assigning it. These bad instructions, in all probability, had some effect upon the final result and affected Darrow’s rights. For authority on this subject, and to stand by precedent in this Court, I refer to these past decisions: K & E Land & Cattle, Inc. v. Mayer, 330 N.W.2d 529 (S.D.1983); Larson v. Locken, 262 N.W.2d 752 (S.D.1978); and State Hwy. Comm’n. v. Beets, 88 S.D. 536, 224 N.W.2d 567 (1974).