Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Chamley

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 1997No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbertson, Justice

[¶ 48.] I respectfully dissent from the majority on issues 1 through 3, and concur on issue 4.1 would uphold Chamley’s conviction.

[¶ 49.] 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting “prior bad acts” evidence involving Chamley’s alleged sexual misconduct.

[¶ 50.] In order to find that a trial court has abused its discretion, we must find that the trial court’s decision “is not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Dakota Cheese v. Taylor, 525 N.W.2d 713, 715 (S.D.1995). Because we cannot substitute our reasoning for the trial court’s, “the question is not…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. United States v. Robert Christopher Ingraham A/K/A Arthur Robert MacKeilCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  3. State v. RhinesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. MeansSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  5. State v. MoellerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996

39 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