Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Moeller
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided May 22, 1996No. NonePublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbertson, Justice
/¶ 138] ISSUE ONE
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING “PRIOR BAD ACTS” EVIDENCE INVOLVING THREE SEXUAL ASSAULTS COMMITTED BY MOELLER IN 1973, 1979, AND 1990?
[¶ 139] I respectfully dissent as to the rationale and result of Issue One. I would affirm the trial court on this evidentiary ruling.
SDCL 19-12-5 provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Sullivan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Walton v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Roberts v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Lavinder v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1991
- People v. AlcalaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.