# State v. Reutter

> South Dakota Supreme Court · September 6, 1985 · 374 N.W.2d 617

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852516

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert REUTTER, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 6, 1985
- **Citations:** 374 N.W.2d 617; 1985 S.D. LEXIS 352
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fosheim
- **Judges:** Wollman, Fosheim, Morgan, Wuest, Henderson
- **Cited by:** 42 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852516

## Opinion text

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
I concur with the majority opinion on Issues I., II., IV., V., and VI., and with the result on Issue III. The testimony of accomplices Trygstad and Cole was sufficiently corroborated. However, the role of the jury under SDCL 23A-22-8 is overstated and could send a misleading signal to the trial courts.
Under SDCL 23A-22-8, a defendant may not be convicted by the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by evidence which does more than show the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof. The degree of evidence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice is an ultimate question of fact for the jury. See, e.g., State v. Erickson, 315 N.W.2d 332, 335 (S.D.1982) and State v. Walsh, 25 S.D. 30 , 125 N.W. 295 (1910). The trial judge, however, must first determine as a matter of law that competent corroborated evidence is present before the issue can be presented to the jury. The jury then determines the weight thereof. See, e.g., State v. Doss, 355 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 1984). See also People v. Cooks, 190 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 141 Cal.App.2d 224 (Cal.Ct.App.1983), People v. Jones, 76 A.D.2d 1007 , 429 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y.App.Div.1980). The initial role of the trial judge is necessary before the function of the jury is activated. The language of the majority opinion indicates that the entire procedure is the exclusive prerogative of the jury. ■

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852516. Public record. Not legal advice.