State v. Spoonemore, 12696
| Decision Date | 14 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12696,12696 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert SPOONEMORE, Defendant and Appellant. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Leann Larson Finke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and respondent; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
Todd D. Hauge of Bakewell & Hauge, Custer, for defendant and appellant.
Appellant, Robert Spoonemore, was convicted on November 14, 1978, after a jury trial, of three counts of third degree burglary. We reverse.
The state's primary witness was the alleged accomplice of appellant. Defense council requested a cautionary instruction concerning accomplice testimony, * which the trial court refused to give. In State v. Beene, 257 N.W.2d 589 (S.D.1977), we said, "For cases tried after the publication of this opinion, it will be deemed error to fail upon request to give a cautionary instruction concerning accomplice testimony whenever the testimony given upon the trial is sufficient to warrant the conclusion upon the part of the jury that a witness implicating a defendant was an accomplice * * *." 257 N.W.2d at 592-593. As in that case, the testimony of the alleged accomplice was of crucial importance to the outcome and failure to correctly instruct the jury on the weight to be given such testimony was prejudicial to appellant.
One other alleged error on appeal may arise on retrial. Appellant moved to suppress certain evidence that was obtained during the course of a search conducted pursuant to a valid warrant. After a suppression hearing was held, the trial judge entered findings of fact and an order denying the motion. A trial court's findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous, are against a clear preponderance of the evidence, or are not supported by credible evidence. Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P.A., 262 N.W.2d 508 (S.D.1978); Bogue v. Clay County, 75 S.D. 140, 60 N.W.2d 218 (1953). The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing clearly supports the findings of the trial court. The search was a reasonable and valid search that did not violate any of appellant's constitutional or statutory rights.
The judgment of conviction is reversed.
ANDERST, Circuit Judge, sitting for HENDERSON, J., disqualified.
I would affirm the conviction in this case for all of the reasons cited in my dissent in State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Weiker
...of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. See, McMullen v. State, 84 S.D. 538, 173 N.W.2d 499 (1970); State v. Spoonemore, 287 N.W.2d 109 (S.D.1980); Compare, SDCL 15-6-52(a). The trial court correctly proceeded to determine the likelihood of Weiker next argues that the thre......
-
State v. McBride, 12779
...Indeed, even today the members of this Court are not in unanimity on the necessity of giving such an instruction. See State v. Spoonemore, 287 N.W.2d 109 (S.D.1980). With regard to the questioning of the officer about defendant's silence at the time of his arrest, defense counsel asked defe......
-
Grooms v. State, 13562
...to warrant the conclusion upon the part of the jury that a witness implicating a defendant was an accomplice. See also State v. Spoonemore, 287 N.W.2d 109 (S.D.1980). Also, we note that counsel in this case failed to request a jury instruction regarding the necessity of corroboration of acc......
-
State v. Brim
...are clearly erroneous, are against a clear preponderance of the evidence, or are not supported by credible evidence." State v. Spoonemore, 287 N.W.2d 109, 110 (S.D.1980). SDCL 15-6-52(a) states that "(f)indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be......