State v. Bruce
2011 SD 14
| S.D. | 2011Background
- Bruce was convicted on 55 counts of knowing possession of child pornography; evidence of other acts included a semen-stained disc found in his safe, used to prove identity and knowledge, while pornography on his computer was not admitted.
- Search of Bruce's apartment on Dec 23, 2008 yielded discs in a safe and footlocker; Pulscher reported seeing child pornography and testified.
- Initial appearance was Dec 24, 2008; trial was postponed due to motions and mistrial, with retrial held Dec 7-9, 2009, totaling 348 days from initial appearance to final trial.
- Bruce received ten-year maximum sentences on 10 counts (consecutive for 100 years) and ten-year maximum on remaining counts (concurrent, with suspended 45 counts); issues on admission of other acts, cross-examination limits, 180-day rule, and punishment length were raised.
- Court affirmed some rulings, reversed other-acts admission weighting for the max sentence, and remanded for resentencing to consider proportionality and potential intra- and inter-jurisdictional comparisons.
- Bruce and Pulscher’s relationship details and the credibility of third-party perpetrator theories were central to the evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of semen-stain disc as other-acts evidence | Bruce argues the stain’s semen identity was unduly prejudicial. | Bruce contends the probative value was outweighed by prejudice. | Admissible; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Cross-examination of Pulscher in third‑party perpetrator defense | Bruce seeks broad cross-examination about Pulscher’s access to the evidence sources. | State argues limits prevent distracting or prejudicial speculation. | No abuse of discretion; restrictions proper. |
| 180-day rule and timing of trial | Bruce argues dismissal due to exceeding 180 days. | Delays attributable to defense requests and mistrial timing. | No error; both trials within 180-day limits after proper exclusions. |
| Cruel and unusual punishment (gross disproportionality) | Bruce claims 100-year aggregate sentence is grossly disproportionate. | Court should generally defer to sentencing within statutory maximums. | Remand for resentencing to allow intra- and inter-jurisdictional proportionality comparison; not grossly disproportional on record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huber, 2010 S.D. 63 (2010) (guidelines for admissibility of other acts; probative value vs. prejudice)
- State v. Wright, 1999 S.D. 50 (1999) (Rule 403 balancing for other acts evidence)
- State v. Dubois, 2008 S.D. 15 (2008) (use of uncharged acts to prove identity and knowledge in child pornography cases)
- State v. Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 (1998) (proportionality framework and sentencing discretion)
- State v. Blair, 2006 S.D. 75 (2006) (two determinants for seriousness of child pornography offenses; aggregate penalties consideration)
- State v. McKinney, 2005 S.D. 74 (2005) (multiple counts and range of penalties for possession offenses)
- State v. Martin, 2003 S.D. 153 (2003) (aggregate sentencing considerations in child pornography cases)
- State v. Faulks, 2001 S.D. 115 (2001) (Rule 403 balancing and prejudice considerations)