State v. Buchholtz
2013 SD 96
| S.D. | 2013Background
- B.L., age six, alleged sexual abuse by Kevin Buchholtz in June 2011 in Valley Springs, SD.
- B.L. visited Buchholtz at his home; incident involved touching of external and internal genitalia and a substance observed during the encounter.
- Investigation began June 13, 2011; DSS report led to police interview and forensic interview scheduling.
- Forensic interview conducted at Child’s Voice; B.L. described sexual contact and a doll given by Buchholtz.
- Police recovered items from Buchholtz’s bedroom consistent with B.L.’s descriptions; Buchholtz was charged with multiple counts including rape, sexual contact, and indecent exposure.
- Jury convicted Buchholtz on counts 1–4; counts 5–11 were dismissed; Buchholtz appealed alleging evidentiary errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VanRoekel’s testimony on why defendants don’t confess was admissible | Buchholtz opened the door; the testimony was proper | Testimony invaded credibility assessment and exceeded expertise | Abuse of discretion; reversed partial for this issue |
| Admissibility of the child victim’s statements to the forensic interviewer | Statements were admissible under SDCL 19-16-38 after reliability finding | Statements were unreliable and should be excluded | Admissible; court’s reliability analysis upheld |
| Dr. Kertz’s medical diagnosis of ‘child sexual abuse’ | Expert diagnosis supported by context and corroboration | Diagnosis invaded jury’s province and bolstered credibility | Abuse of discretion; reversed; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Veith v. O’Brien, 2007 S.D. 88 (S.D. 2007) (admissibility when adversary opens door to line of questioning)
- State v. Letcher, 1996 S.D. 88 (S.D. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Kvasnicka, 2013 S.D. 25 (S.D. 2013) (custody of expert testimony; standard of review for expert evidence)
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990) (reliability indicia for child hearsay statements; totality of circumstances)
- Whitted, 11 F.3d 782 (8th Cir. 1993) (prohibited expert diagnosis testifying the abuse occurred; bolstering concerns)