2023 S.D. 67
S.D.2023Background
- Matthew Allan Carter was accused and ultimately convicted of first-degree rape of a five-year-old girl, E.W., in South Dakota.
- E.W. disclosed to her mother and grandmother that Carter had sexually abused her; these statements were corroborated by video and medical evidence.
- Medical examinations revealed E.W. had contracted gonorrhea; Carter also tested positive for gonorrhea.
- Law enforcement, after Carter attempted to have his father retrieve hidden items, found electronic devices at Carter’s home containing child pornography and incriminating internet search history.
- Carter was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to 45 years imprisonment, with 25 years suspended.
- On appeal, Carter challenged various evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Child Pornography Videos | Videos and search history are probative of intent and motive (not just character); minimal prejudice due to limiting instruction. | Videos are unduly prejudicial, irrelevant, and not clearly linked to Carter; inflamed jury against him. | Admission upheld; probative value outweighed prejudice; sufficient proof of ownership. |
| Exclusion of Defense Expert on NAAT Testing Reliability | Properly admitted NAAT results following Daubert hearing and CDC guidelines; defense expert was not excluded from testifying at trial. | Court excluded expert who questioned NAAT test reliability; jury deprived of critical context. | No abuse of discretion; defense failed to proffer expert at trial; tests deemed reliable and corroborated. |
| Admission of E.W.’s Out-of-Court Statements & Confrontation Clause | Statements admissible as nontestimonial under tender-years exception; corroborated by physical evidence; E.W. unavailable due to lack of memory. | Admission without cross-examination violated confrontation rights; statements unreliable and critical. | No constitutional violation; statements admissible as nontestimonial and reliable; corroboration sufficient. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction | Multiple consistent disclosures, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence show penetration and intent. | Insufficient direct evidence of penetration; conviction should not stand. | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| Ineffective Assistance of Counsel | Record lacks basis for addressing on direct appeal; should be raised in habeas proceedings. | Failure to suppress evidence was prejudicially deficient. | Not addressed; insufficient record on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Snodgrass, 951 N.W.2d 792 (S.D. 2020) (other acts evidence is admissible when closely related to the charged sex offense and highly probative of motive and intent)
- State v. Phillips, 906 N.W.2d 411 (S.D. 2018) (standard for admissibility of other acts evidence under SDCL 19-19-404(b))
- State v. Toohey, 816 N.W.2d 120 (S.D. 2012) (child witness unavailability and sufficiency of penetration evidence in child sexual abuse cases)
- State v. Taylor, 948 N.W.2d 342 (S.D. 2020) (limiting instructions regarding other acts evidence)
- State v. Loeschke, 980 N.W.2d 266 (S.D. 2022) (articulation of prejudice standard in evidentiary rulings)