Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Frey

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1989No. 16034Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice

The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on trespass, justification of force to prevent trespass, defense of others, and mistake of fact. The majority affirms that error.

1. Trespass Instructions.

Frey proposed Instructions # 2 and # 3. These instructions defined trespass and justification of force to prevent trespass under SDCL 22-18-4.* The trial court refused these instructions. Instead, the court instructed the jury, over Frey’s objection, that an officer acting within his authority is ordinarily not trespassing when investigating a crime upon private property-

To support the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. State v. HuberSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. CookSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State v. Grey OwlSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State v. OienSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API