Legal Opinion

State v. Rome

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1990No. 16668PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MILLER, Justice.

In this appeal, we reverse the holding of the trial court which prevented the defendant from presenting evidence in support of a justification/necessity defense in a parental childnapping case.

FACTS

This is the second time this matter has been before us. In State v. Rome, 426 N.W.2d 19 (S.D.1988) {Rome I), we held that “the trial court committed reversible error in prohibiting the introduction of any evidence relating to [Rome’s] justifi-eation/necessity defense.” Rome I, supra at 21.

Prior to the new trial on remand, the trial judge requested that Rome make an offer of proof on…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. MillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State v. BakerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. State v. Kills SmallSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Conaty v. SolemSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State v. BoettcherSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. BowersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. DucheneauxSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  3. State v. BowersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. RomeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API