Opinion

State v. Rufener

  • 392 N.W.2d 424
Court
South Dakota Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 30, 1986
Status
Published
Author
Wuest
On the bench
Fosheim, Morgan, Wuest, Henderson, Sabers
Cited by
54 cases

Modified in part by State v. Rufener, 1987 S.D. LEXIS 238 (1987)

noting that evidence of the defendant acting in conformity with prior unproven acts should be prohibited under SDCL 19-12-5

How later courts described this case

  • noting that evidence of the defendant acting in conformity with prior unproven acts should be prohibited under SDCL 19-12-5

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WUEST, Justice

(concurring specially).

The State should not have offered evidence of the firearm and marijuana found in the car. The court should not have admitted it, although the defense objection was too general. If the evidence of guilt was not so strong, I would probably vote to reverse. However, given the totality of the evidence, I concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.