State v. Hankins
| Decision Date | 02 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | #29801 |
| Citation | 982 N.W.2d 21 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Nathan HANKINS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
JOHN R. MURPHY, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appellant.
MARK VARGO, Attorney General, ERIN E. HANDKE, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.
[¶1.] A Lawrence County grand jury indicted Nathan Hankins on two counts of first-degree rape and two alternative counts of sexual contact with a minor under 16 with his half-sister, R.H. A jury convicted Hankins of two counts of first-degree rape. Hankins appeals, asserting that his due process rights were violated due to an insufficient arraignment, that the court abused its discretion in admitting testimony from certain witnesses, and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
[¶2.] In October 2019, R.H. told her mother, Patricia Hankins (Patricia), that Hankins had touched her privates. On November 4, 2019, R.H. participated in a forensic interview with Monica Eaton-Harris. In the interview, R.H. stated that Hankins touched and kissed her vagina using his hand, mouth, and tongue.
[¶3.] On December 18, 2019, a Lawrence County grand jury indicted Hankins for the first-degree rape of a child under 13 by digital penetration under SDCL 22-22-1(1) and SDCL 22-22-1.2(1) or, alternatively, sexual contact with a minor under age 16 under SDCL 22-22-7. The grand jury also indicted Hankins for first-degree rape of a child under 13 by cunnilingus under SDCL 22-22-1(1) and SDCL 22-22-1.2(1) or, alternatively, sexual contact with a minor under 16 under SDCL 22-22-7. On January 28, 2020, the State filed a part II information that alleged Hankins was previously convicted of first-degree rape under SDCL 22-22-1(5) on August 19, 2004.
[¶4.] The circuit court held Hankins's arraignment hearing on February 11, 2020. The circuit court advised all defendants appearing on that date of their statutory and constitutional rights. When the circuit court addressed Hankins and asked him if he understood his rights, Hankins answered affirmatively. He then waived his right to have the indictment read to him. The circuit court explained the charges against Hankins, their maximum sentences, and their mandatory minimums. The circuit court also informed Hankins of the part II information, the allegations contained therein, and the potential consequences. Hankins pled not guilty and denied the part II information.
[¶5.] A three-day jury trial began on May 18, 2021. The State's first witness was Dr. Cara Hamilton, who examined R.H. on November 7, 2019. During Dr. Hamilton's testimony, the following occurred:
Dr. Hamilton testified that her examination of R.H. was normal and revealed no evidence of vaginal penetration. However, she testified that a normal examination was consistent with R.H.’s disclosure and that there is "a lot of evidence that shows that even witnessed to and confessed to vaginal penetration can leave no documented conclusive evidence of penetration on exams outside of the three-to five-day healing period."
[¶6.] At the time of trial, R.H. was 11 years old and in fourth grade. She testified that when Hankins would stay at her house, he sometimes slept in her bed. She testified that Hankins touched her vagina with his hand, mouth, and tongue. R.H. explained that this happened when she was in second grade. R.H. further testified that she did not tell anyone about what happened because she was uncomfortable and concerned her mother would not believe what happened. During R.H.’s testimony, Hankins made numerous objections, many of which the circuit court sustained. As the prosecutor persisted with similar questions, Hankins's attorney expressed frustration by saying: "Your Honor, I don't know how many times I can object to the same question."
[¶7.] Patricia testified that she was a stay-at-home mother who was married but separated from her husband, David. She stated that she had two children with David: S.H. and R.H. She noted that Hankins is David's adult son with another woman. Patricia testified that Hankins would frequently come over to the apartment she shared with S.H. and R.H. and bring gifts for the children. Patricia testified that Hankins slept on R.H.’s bed with her three times. She stated that R.H. disclosed Hankins's conduct in October 2019. Patricia testified that she immediately called David, who told law enforcement of Hankins's conduct at the end of October.
[¶8.] On redirect, in response to defense counsel eliciting testimony from Patricia that R.H. had met with the prosecutor multiple times, the prosecutor inquired: "Do you appreciate the fact that somebody took the time to listen to [R.H.] before today?" The circuit court overruled Hankins's objection based on relevancy and granted his request for a standing objection "to this line of questions." Patricia answered: "I think it's important for children to be heard." The State then moved to a different line of questions about David's drinking problems. In the middle of a series of questions about David's drinking, the State asked: "Is [R.H.] a truthful child?" Patricia responded, "Yes." The State then returned to additional questions about David's drinking. Hankins raised no objections to any of these questions.
[¶9.] Next, Kali Njos testified that she had known Hankins for eight years and had a relationship with him from 2016 through February 2019. She and Hankins have one daughter, Kaia. Njos stated that after her relationship with Hankins ended, she maintained contact with David. She testified that David informed her by text messages dated October 22, 2019, that R.H. had claimed that Hankins inappropriately touched her. Njos testified that she asked Hankins by text message about R.H.’s disclosure on November 9, 2019. During her testimony, the circuit court admitted the text-message exchange between Njos and Hankins. The text-message conversation read:
Njos testified that she took a screenshot of this text-message conversation with Hankins and sent it to David on January 9, 2020.
[¶10.] The State next called Monica Eaton-Harris, who testified that she had a bachelor's degree in literature, a master's degree in counseling, had been a forensic interviewer for two years and three months, and had conducted 230 forensic interviews. Eaton-Harris noted that she completed 40 hours of training at the National Child Advocacy Center to become a forensic interviewer. She testified that "[a] forensic interview is a nonleading, nonsuggestive interview of a child who is a possible victim of abuse or neglect or a witness to domestic violence." She testified that she interviewed R.H. for an hour in November 2019 when R.H. was nine years and seven months old. The jury watched a video of her interview with R.H. Eaton-Harris stated that child victims frequently delay disclosing their abuse. During redirect examination, Hankins objected to the following question:
[¶11.] Tifanie Petro, the director of the Children's Home Child Advocacy Center and statewide prevention education for Children's Home Society, further testified that delays in disclosure are the most common characteristic of children who are sexually abused. She testified that some children fear disclosing what happened because they do not think they will be believed.
[¶12.] When the State rested, Hankins made a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the circuit court denied. The only defense witness called was Patricia Hankins, who testified about a letter from R.H.’s school in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Horse
... ... "Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ... 'requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether ... the trial court abused its discretion in making an ... evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was ... prejudicial[.]'" State v. Hankins , 2022 ... S.D. 67, ¶ 20, 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 (quoting State v ... Thoman , 2021 S.D. 10, ¶ 41, 955 N.W.2d 759, 772) ... "An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an ... end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason ... and evidence." Id. ¶ 21 (quoting State ... ...
-
State v. Weasel
...First, whether there was an abuse of discretion. Second, whether the error was prejudicial. See State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 20, 982 N.W.2d 21, 30. "An abuse of discretion a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. It is a fu......
- State v. Alvarez