Legal Opinion

State v. Jones

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 2011No. 25646PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KONENKAMP, Justice (on reassignment).

[¶ 1.] Defendant was convicted of raping a twenty-three-year-old woman who testified that she was too intoxicated to have consented. He appeals asserting that although SDCL 22-22-1(4) does not explicitly include a knowledge element, the circuit court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that the State must prove that he knew that the woman’s intoxicated condition made her unable to consent. Because mere silence by the Legislature on whether knowledge is a necessary element of an offense will not always negate a knowledge requirement, especially for…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Staples v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Liparota v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. State v. NagelSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State v. GalatiSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. BirdsheadSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. RoachSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State v. ArmstrongSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  4. State v. DiazSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
  5. State v. WhistlerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014

14 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