Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Engesser

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 2003No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice

[¶ 54.] I concur on Issue 1 but dissent on Issues 2, 3 and 4 because the cumulative error created by the trial court’s rulings on those issues warrants remand to provide Engesser with a fair trial.

ISSUE 2

[¶ 55.] THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO ELICIT STATEMENTS FROM TROOPER FOX THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS LYING.

[¶ 56.] I agree with the majority opinion that Engesser failed to raise his character and reputation objections at trial and therefore waived them on appeal. However,’the majority errs in ending the analysis with this conclusion because En-gesser also raised…

2Cases cited28 opinions

California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
State v. GuthrieSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
United States v. RemingtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
State v. DokkenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
State v. HollandSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984

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