State v. Rose
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
FOSHEIM, Chief Justice.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual contact with a child under fifteen in violation of SDCL 22-22-7. 1 He was sentenced to five years in the South Dakota State Penitentiary and appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
SDCL 22-22-7.1 defines the term sexual contact used in SDCL 22-22-7. It specifies that the requisite intent is arousal or gratification of the sexual desire of either party. Before trial the State sought a ruling from the trial court on the admissibility of other crimes to prove intent, motive, opportunity, preparation, knowledge and plan pursuant to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
- F. M. Slagle & Co. v. BushnellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1944
- State v. HoughtonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- Davis v. KresslySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. BrownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- State v. RufenerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. MeansSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- State v. McCaffertySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. BaskerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. HuberSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.