Court Opinion

ID: 9852109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:24:38.266843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:22.665538
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
Regarding the issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the *49gun supposedly used in the commission of the armed robbery, I agree that the correct law this court must follow is found in State v. Pickering, 217 N.W.2d 877, 881 (1974) where this court stated:
Instruments used in the commission of a crime are admissible as evidence only where there is proof connecting them with the defendant or the crime for which he is charged. * * * Although admissibility does not require proof positively showing the connection, there must be proof rendering the inference “reasonable” that the evidence was connected with the defendant or the crime charged. State v. O’Connor, 1969, 84 S.D. 415, 172 N.W.2d 724. Conversely, an instrument allegedly used in the commission of a crime should be rejected if the connection is too remote or conjectural.
However, I must disagree with the conclusion arrived at in the conference opinion that the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that the gun marked as an exhibit was the gun stolen at Huron and used in the robbery. While testimony admitted into evidence proved the gun was stolen in Huron, it wholly failed to establish the gun was stolen from the defendant’s stepfather. The only connection with the defendant being that the gun was stolen in Huron and that the defendant was apprehended in Huron, I feel this connection is too remote and conjectural. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the gun was used in the crime charged, thus the weapon should not have been admitted into evidence.
In a trial for armed robbery the fact that the weapon was improperly admitted would be prejudicial “per se” to the defendant and therefore require this court to reverse this case.