State v. Dominiack

• Decision Date: 25 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. 13787,13787
• Citation: 334 N.W.2d 51
• Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dennis Eugene DOMINIACK, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 51

334 N.W.2d 51

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dennis Eugene DOMINIACK, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13787.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued March 24, 1983.

Decided May 25, 1983.

Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on the brief.

Sidney B. Strange of Strange, Strange & Palmer, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.

DUNN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence resulting from a conviction to conspire to possess and distribute a controlled substance in violation of SDCL 22-3-8. ^* We reverse.

On or about April 17, 1980, David Minor (Minor) was arrested for distribution of controlled substances in Union County, South Dakota. Information provided by Minor subsequent to his arrest led to the raid of the apartment of Louie Miller (Miller) on April 18, 1980, in Vermillion, South Dakota. Large quantities of controlled substances, including marijuana, methaqualone, hashish, and cocaine, were found in the apartment. Miller was subsequently convicted of a felony charge for operating and maintaining a place where drugs were stored.

In conjunction with the raid of Miller's apartment, Dennis Eugene Dominiack (appellant) was charged for conspiring with Miller to purchase, hold and sell drugs. Appellant was not present at the time of the raid and did not reside with Miller in the apartment. The record reveals that when appellant was arrested, no drugs of any kind were found on his person or in his car or residence.

In bringing a charge of conspiracy to possess and distribute controlled substances against appellant, the State alleged appellant participated in at least five separate acts to carry out the objects of the conspiracy. According to the information filed by the State, these acts allegedly took place between the dates of March 18 and April 18, 1980.

Miller and appellant were friends and, since they were from the same town, the two had known each other for many years. At the very least, it can be said that the two would meet with some frequency and would use various drugs during these meetings. Apparently, the drugs were sometimes furnished by Miller and sometimes by appellant.

The State evidently believed that testimony by Miller would establish the existence of the alleged conspiracy between Miller and appellant. Unfortunately, Miller was less than consistent in his testimony. At trial, Miller disavowed statements made at the time of his arrest and at his preliminary hearing. Contrary to his prior statements, Miller denied that there was a partnership between himself and appellant in a drug venture. While Miller admitted that he personally had distributed drugs to others and that he and appellant would use drugs while together, he denied on cross-examination that he and appellant had ever gone together for the purpose of distributing drugs to others. Ultimately, the State had Miller declared a hostile witness and had his prior inconsistent statements alleging a conspiracy introduced. In denying these prior statements, Miller alleged he was on drugs at the time of the arrest and responded untruthfully to the State's questions at that point and at the preliminary hearing.

Since Miller was declared an accomplice, the State needed to introduce corroborating evidence to establish the existence of the conspiracy. To corroborate Miller's prior statements alleging conspiracy, the State relied on testimony by Minor. Minor admits to smoking fifteen to twenty joints with appellant over a period of time. Minor testified that he and appellant would sell each other drugs for personal use. Minor also testified that he and Miller knew each other. In fact, Minor admitted selling Miller up to two pounds of marijuana which he knew Minor was going to resell to others. Minor also left amphetamines with Miller hoping Miller could sell them to others for cash. After Miller's efforts proved to be unsuccessful, Minor picked up the drugs and apparently then tried to dispose of them himself. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that Minor also had the status of an accomplice.

Based on the testimony of these two witnesses and observations of two arresting officers and a crime lab chemist, appellant was convicted of the conspiracy charge. Appellant now asks us to review the conviction in light of the issues raised below.

Appellant's primary contention is that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that Minor, like Miller, was an accomplice as a matter of law.

In State v. Johnson, 81 S.D. 600, 139 N.W.2d 232 (1965), this court stated:

An accomplice is one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial. To render one an accomplice he must in some manner knowingly and with criminal intent participate, associate or concur with another in the commission of a crime.

81 S.D. at 606, 139 N.W.2d at 236.

In the case at hand, appellant is charged with conspiring to possess and distribute a controlled substance in violation of SDCL 22-3-8. Miller, who was an accomplice as a matter of law, testified that he purchased two pounds of marijuana from Minor. Minor admitted he made this sale and acknowledged that he knew Miller was going to resell the marijuana to others. Moreover, Minor acknowledged leaving amphetamines with Miller, knowing he would be paid if Miller were able to sell them. Clearly, Minor worked in concert with Miller, conspired if you will, to obtain and sell drugs to residents of Vermillion and others in the surrounding area.

The State argues, however, that we must ignore the evidence establishing a conspiracy to distribute between Minor and Miller, and focus on the conspiracy charge against Miller and appellant. The State alleges the former conspiracy is not related to the latter and thus an accomplice instruction for Minor was properly denied.

In State v. Fox, 313 N.W.2d 38, 40 (S.D.1981), we cited the following proposition found in Gray v. State, 585 P.2d 357, 359 (Okl.Cr.1978), with approval:

A witness is not an accomplice to a defendant simply because his distinct acts happen to constitute a like offense. Rather, it is necessary that a charge against that witness could have arisen from the same occurrence as the crime for which the defendant was tried.

The State alleges Minor's acts are distinct from those charged in the Miller-appellant conspiracy and he was thus not an accomplice in the alleged acts of conspiracy. We cannot agree.

The State alleges Miller and appellant conspired to possess and distribute controlled substances. The best evidence the State received from Miller's direct testimony demonstrating the existence of a conspiracy was Miller's assertion that he used money borrowed from appellant to buy drugs. Miller further testified, however, that he used some of the borrowed funds to purchase several pounds of marijuana from Minor for resale. Minor admitted at trial that he knew the marijuana was to be resold to others. If the use of appellant's funds to purchase drugs involves him in a conspiracy, the purchase of those drugs from Minor would make him no less a member of this conspiracy. It is hard to imagine how Miller could be ruled an accomplice and Minor not be held in that same status.

Even if it could have been concluded that Minor's status was in doubt, the instruction offered by the trial court, submitting this question to the jury, was incomplete. The instruction on Minor's accomplice status ended with the following statement : "Whether or not any witness in this case was an accomplice as defined in these instructions is for the jury to determine from all the evidence in the case." At the very least, the jury should have been further instructed in the following manner:

If you find that David Minor is an accomplice, then his testimony cannot be used to corroborate Miller's testimony. Likewise, Miller's testimony could not be used to corroborate Minor's testimony as an accomplice cannot corroborate the testimony of another accomplice. If you find that Miller's testimony is not corroborated in the evidence, then you must disregard his testimony in arriving at your verdict.

As we noted above, however, our reading of the record leads us to the conclusion that the trial court had no choice but to declare Minor an accomplice as a matter of law.

Having concluded that both Miller and Minor were accomplices in this case, we must determine whether corroborating evidence was produced as required by SDCL 23A-22-8. In State v. Quinn, 69 S.D. 574, 577, 13 N.W.2d 50, 51-52 (1944), this court determined whether accomplice's testimony could corroborate other accomplice testimony. We stated:

Both of these witnesses being accomplices, we are of the opinion that the testimony of one cannot be regarded as corroboration of the testimony of the other within the meaning of our statute requiring that the testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated. In our opinion, a holding permitting one accomplice to corroborate another would be contrary to the spirit and intent of our statute. Such is the general holding under similar statutes.

A similar conclusion was reached in State v....