Legal Opinion

State v. Big Crow

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 2009No. 24949PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZINTER, Justice.

[¶ 1.] James Big Crow was charged with two counts of incestuous sexual contact involving his niece. After a hearing, the circuit court allowed admission of acts of incestuous sexual contact involving two other nieces. The court admitted the other acts evidence to prove a common plan, design or scheme under SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b)). The jury convicted and Big Crow appeals.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶ 2.] Big Crow was charged with incestuous sexual contact with his niece, D.P., in violation of SDCL 22-22-19.1 (2004). 1 According to the State’s evidence, the abuse occurred…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. People v. EwoldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. WrightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. ChampagneSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. WernerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  5. United States v. John H. Weidman, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. Medicine EagleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
  3. State v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Alto Township v. MendenhallSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Commonwealth v. Walker, D., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026

6 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