Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Maves

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1984No. 14371-14373Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

DISSENT

“Notwithstanding the need for efficiency, a joint trial is inappropriate if it sacrifices a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Reiman, 284 N.W.2d 860, 866 (S.D.1979). The ease herein provides another example of a situation wherein judicial economy must be delegated a lesser priority in order to promote justice. (See my dissent in State v. No Heart, 353 N.W.2d 43, 49 (S.D.1984).) I dissent on the affirmance of the order of joinder, which order was entered upon motion by the State and after stiff resistance by defendants.

Three defendants were charged separately with perjury by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. ReimanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State v. Iron ShellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. No HeartSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. AuenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State v. HerreraNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922

4 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