State v. Johnston
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- People v. BaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- State v. ElliottNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. ViningCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1970
- State v. PedroncelliNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1984
- Woods v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.