Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Johnston

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1991No. 17164Published

1DissentMiller, Chief Justice

Rather than reversing and remanding for re-sentencing, I would reverse and remand for a new trial on all charges.

GRAND THEFT COUNTS

Although I agree with the majority’s analysis of the “continuing plan or scheme” principle, I assert that it is misapplied. It is for the jury, and not this Court, to ascertain whether the conduct of defendant amounted to more than one offense.

In State v. Kieffer 17 S.D. 67, 72, 95 N.W. 289, 291 (1903), cited by the majority, we said:

It was for the jury to say, therefore, under the instruction of the court, whether or not the animal which the accused was charged…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. People v. BaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. State v. ElliottNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. ViningCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1970
  4. State v. PedroncelliNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Woods v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1906

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