State of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Farrell Dillon, Defendant and Appellant (South Dakota 2010)

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on all five issues, holding that the denial of a judgment of acquittal, the denial of mistrials concerning expert testimony and a courtroom shoe display, the exclusion of the defendant's letters, and the refusal to grant a new trial for alleged juror misconduct were all proper. The court applied de novo review to the judgment of acquittal claim and abuse‑of‑discretion review to the remaining evidentiary and procedural challenges.

Holding

Whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal based on K.D.’s recantation.. The trial court did not err; sufficient evidence of penetration existed to support the convictions.

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the State’s psychiatric expert testified that most abuse reports are truthful.. The trial court did not err; the curative instruction was sufficient and no prejudice was shown.

Whether the trial court erred in refusing a mistrial when the jury passed a hallway displaying children’s shoes unrelated to the trial.. The trial court did not err; the shoe display was not inherently prejudicial and the jury was instructed to disregard it.

Whether the trial court violated Defendant’s due‑process rights by refusing to admit letters and cards he wrote to his daughter.. The trial court did not err; the letters were inadmissible hearsay and not relevant to the elements of the crimes.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing a new trial after jurors introduced extrinsic information about Defendant’s prior imprisonment and alleged ineffective counsel.. The trial court did not err; the presumption of prejudice was overcome by substantial evidence of guilt and limiting instructions.

State of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Farrell Dillon, Defendant and Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by