State v. Big Crow
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- People v. EwoldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. WrightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. ChampagneSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. WernerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- 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
- State v. Medicine EagleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- State v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- State v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- Alto Township v. MendenhallSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
- Commonwealth v. Walker, D., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.