State v. Shaw
705 N.W.2d 620 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under South Dakota evidence rules, a witness's out-of-court accusatory statements made during a police interview do not qualify as non-hearsay 'statements of identification,' which are limited to formal identification procedures. Furthermore, a trial court has discretion to find that prior testimony is not sufficiently inconsistent to be admitted as substantive evidence, thereby limiting its use to impeachment.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1999, James Shaw and the victim, J.W.H., were co-workers who lived in on-site trailers at the Crazy Horse monument.
- Shaw accused J.W.H. of stealing beer from his refrigerator, and trouble had also arisen between J.W.H. and his roommates over missing food and compact discs.
- On the evening of July 11, 1999, Shaw, J.W.H., Joseph White Hat, and others drove to a remote location to continue a party.
- At the remote spot, Shaw and White Hat pulled J.W.H. from a truck, and Shaw punched him in the face over the stolen beer accusation.
- As the group drove back, Shaw and White Hat threw J.W.H. from the bed of the moving pickup truck.
- After J.W.H. landed on the ground, Shaw and White Hat began hitting and repeatedly kicking him.
- Shaw and White Hat then dragged J.W.H. into a run-off rivulet, held his face down in the water, and one of them inflicted a deep slash on his neck.
- The attackers left J.W.H. for dead, but he managed to walk over two miles to a ranch house to get help for his life-threatening injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- James Shaw was initially charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault.
- Shaw entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to aggravated assault, but the sentence and conviction were later vacated by a habeas court after the State violated the agreement.
- The State filed an amended complaint charging Shaw with attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault, along with being a habitual offender.
- A jury in the state trial court found Shaw guilty of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault.
- After the verdict, Shaw's counsel moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Shaw (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by refusing to instruct a jury that a witness's prior inconsistent statements—made during a police interview and at a preliminary hearing—can be considered as substantive proof, rather than only for impeachment purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbertson, Chief Justice
No, the trial court did not err. A trial court properly instructs a jury to consider a witness's prior statements for impeachment only when those statements do not qualify as non-hearsay under the state's evidence rules. J.W.H.'s statements to police did not qualify as 'statements of identification' under SDCL 19-16-2(3) because that rule is intended for formal identification procedures like lineups or photo arrays, not general accusatory statements made during an interview. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that J.W.H.'s preliminary hearing testimony was not fundamentally inconsistent with his trial testimony, thus precluding its substantive admission under SDCL 19-16-2(1). Since the statements were not admissible as substantive evidence, the jury instruction limiting their use to credibility was correct.
Dissenting - Sabers, Justice
Yes, the trial court erred. The court's jury instruction was prejudicial because the victim's prior inconsistent statements should have been admitted as substantive evidence. The statements were clearly inconsistent: at trial, the victim implicated Shaw in acts that he had previously attributed solely to White Hat in both a police interview and under oath at a preliminary hearing. These prior statements qualify as non-hearsay under SDCL 19-16-2 and were central to Shaw's defense that he did not participate in the attempted murder. By instructing the jury that it 'must not' consider these statements for their truth, the court deprived Shaw of due process and a fair trial, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial with proper instructions.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of two hearsay exceptions in South Dakota, narrowly interpreting what constitutes a 'statement of identification' and reinforcing a trial court's discretion in determining testimonial 'inconsistency.' By restricting 'statements of identification' to formal police procedures, the court limits the ability of defendants to use a victim's initial, sometimes less-certain, accusatory statements as substantive evidence of innocence. The decision reinforces that while such prior statements are crucial for impeaching a witness's credibility, they face a high bar for being treated as factual proof in their own right, impacting defense strategies that rely on a victim's shifting narrative.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Shaw