State v. Christmas

Citation83 S.D. 506,162 N.W.2d 125
Decision Date29 October 1968
Docket NumberNo. 10475,10475
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie Bruce CHRISTMAS, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota

J. I. Milton Schwartz, Rapid City, for defendant and appellant.

Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, R. James Brennan, Pennington County State's Atty., Rapid City, for plaintiff and respondent.

RENTTO, Judge.

Willie Bruce Christmas, Jr., was charged with the crime of rape in the second degree. It was based on the state's claim that he had accomplished an act of sexual intercourse with one Davine Shangreaux, a female under the age of 18 years and not his wife. Since the evidence did not establish any sexual penetration the crime of rape was not submitted to the jury. It was instructed to consider only the included offenses and returned its verdict finding him guilty of assault with intent to commit rape. He appeals from the judgment of imprisonment entered thereon.

The girl here involved was also the victim of the ravishments dealt with in State v. Barber, S.D., 158 N.W.2d 870, and State v. Fulks, S.D., 160 N.W.2d 418. The assault upon her which is the basis of this prosecution was commenced right after the Barber incident and terminated just before the Fulks affair. They all took place in the same bedroom and on the same bed. The only matter urged in this proceeding, not disposed of in the other two cases, is the defendant's claim of a lack of foundation for the admission in evidence of certain articles of bed clothing taken from the bed in question. These were also in evidence in the other two cases.

The attack on the complainant took place shortly before midnight on March 22, 1967 in Unit 19 of the Horse Shoe Motel at Rapid City, South Dakota. She and her cousin Violet Poor Thunder had been forcibly taken there by the defendant and three other negro airmen. About midnight the girls left the motel and after hiding in a nearby cafe for awhile arrived at the place where they were living about 3:30 the morning of the 23rd. The lady with whom they were staying made some inquiries into the incident. As a result the city police began an investigation of the matter. They arrived at the described motel about 6 a.m. just as four colored men came out of Unit 19. These men were taken to the police station for interrogation and apparently jailed thereafter.

At 4 o'clock that afternoon another police officer went to the motel with a search warrant. The lady in charge gave him a key with which he unlocked the door to Unit 19. He made a search of it and took from the bed on which this assault occurred a gold colored blanket, a mattress pad and two sheets. He also secured from the complainant the blue sweater which she was wearing when the described acts took place. These articles he sent to the F.B.I. laboratory. The special agent who there examined them testified that in his opinion the blue orlon fibers which he found on the two sheets, the mattress pad and the blanket could have originated from the sweater; and that the gold acrylic fibers found on the sweater could have originated from the blanket.

Defendant suggests that this testimoney became irrelevant when the charge of rape was not established. This contention is without merit. Its relevancy arises from the fact that it could be viewed as corroborating the complainant's statement that she was on the bed in question when the assault took place. To this extent it tends to establish a fact in controversy. That issue is present whether the charge is rape or assault with intent to commit rape.

He also challenges the evidentiary competence of the exhibits taken from the bed and which the special agent examined in arriving at his opinions. Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 12th Ed., § 148. It is his position that because the testimony does not show that these articles were under surveillance on March 23rd from about 6 a.m. when the four colored men left the motel, until 4 p.m. when the police officer seized them under the search warrant, a sufficient foundation for their examination by the special agent and subsequent admission in evidence was not established. No one testified that they were in substantially the same condition when sent to the expert as at the time the offense took place.

Physical articles which are rationally probative as to issues which are in controversy are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Reay, 24477.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 11, 2009
    ...the case, and that it has not changed in important respects." State v. Serl, 269 N.W.2d 785, 788 (S.D.1978) (citing State v. Christmas, 83 S.D. 506, 162 N.W.2d 125 (1968)). We review a court's chain of custody decision under the abuse of discretion standard. Lownes, 499 N.W.2d at [¶ 23.] To......
  • State v. Robinette, 12133
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • October 12, 1978
    ...or substitution, but rather show with reasonable probability that no tampering or substitution has occurred. State v. Christmas, 1968, 83 S.D. 506, 162 N.W.2d 125; State v. Herman, supra; State v. Serl, S.D., 269 N.W.2d 785, filed September 6, The evidence here supports the conclusion that ......
  • State v. Lohnes, 15989
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • November 23, 1988
    ...If it is reasonably probable that the object has not been tampered with it is admissible in evidence. State v. Christmas, 83 S.D. 506, 510, 162 N.W.2d 125, 127 (1968). A more sufficient foundation, such as "chain of custody," need only be satisfied where an object is not readily identifiabl......
  • State v. Koenig, 13856
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 27, 1983
    ...used at Larson Manufacturing Company. This precise issue has been before the court on prior occasions. In the case of State v. Christmas, 83 S.D. 506, 162 N.W.2d 125 (1968), we Physical articles which are rationally probative as to issues which are in controversy are admissible in evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT