State v. Armstrong, 793 N.W.2d 6

Armstrong was convicted in 1999 of Rape in the Third Degree and sentenced to 10 years.
Armstrong was released from prison on February 18, 2009.
In February 2009 Armstrong stayed overnight at his former mother’s home with his family.
On February 19, 2009, Armstrong allegedly touched the thirteen-year-old victim, R.L., in her mother’s home.
Armstrong was indicted for Sexual Contact with a Person Under Sixteen and convicted after trial; sentenced to 25 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior rape conviction was admissible under Rule 404(b).	State contends prior rape is relevant to intent and absence of mistake.	Armstrong argues prior act is too remote and dissimilar, or prejudice outweighs value.	Admission not an abuse of discretion; prior act admissible.
Whether group-counseling admission of Armstrong's statements was admissible.	State argues statements are admissible as party admissions and probative of absence of mistake.	Armstrong argues statements are inadmissible hearsay or prejudicial.	Admission not an abuse of discretion; statements admissible.
Whether trial court abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination about prior allegations against another individual (Peltier).	Armstrong sought cross-examination to assess credibility and absence of intent.	Prior allegations against Peltier not admissible or not relevant; credibility not supported.	No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion.

State v. Moeller, 548 N.W.2d 465 (S.D. 1996) (trial for what is charged; not for who defendant is)
State v. Lassiter, 692 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 2005) (Rule 404(b) admissibility requires permissible purpose and relevance)
State v. Wright, 593 N.W.2d 792 (S.D. 1999) (remoteness and similarity considerations in 404(b) analysis)
State v. Ondricek, 535 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 1995) (multi-prong analysis for prior acts evidence)
State v. Sieler, 397 N.W.2d 89 (S.D. 1986) (prior sexual conduct relevance and limits)
State v. Fisher, 783 N.W.2d 664 (S.D. 2010) (remote prior acts and 404(b) similarity standards)
State v. Juarez-Ralios, 783 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 2010) (prior sexual conduct and relevancy framework)
State v. Guthmiller, 667 N.W.2d 295 (S.D. 2003) (limits on admissibility of prior accusations)
State v. Dillon, 632 N.W.2d 37 (S.D. 2001) (prior acts and relevance in trial)
State v. Chamley, 568 N.W.2d 607 (S.D. 1997) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Loftus, 566 N.W.2d 825 (S.D. 1997) (similarity and remoteness in 404(b) analysis)
State v. Chernotik, 671 N.W.2d 264 (S.D. 2003) (caution against laundry-list approach to 404(b))