State v. Dickerson & Reecy, 973 N.W.2d 249

In Nov. 2019, Julio Gomez Rojas (an admitted undocumented immigrant) reported he was assaulted, robbed, and had his debit card taken after two visits from Arianna Reecy; Kevin Dickerson was later arrested with her and charged alongside her.
Reecy’s defense: Gomez Rojas attempted to rape her; she struck him with a phone and then fled; she brought Dickerson for protection on her return.
Prosecution theory: Reecy let Dickerson into the apartment; Dickerson pointed a gun, assaulted Gomez Rojas, and stole his wallet; surveillance and witness testimony partly corroborated entries/exit and screams.
Pretrial, the State moved to exclude any reference to Gomez Rojas’s immigration status; the court granted the motion. The State admitted a MetaBank transaction printout after limited foundation.
Jury convicted both Reecy and Dickerson of first‑degree robbery and burglary; Dickerson was also convicted of aggravated assault. The defendants appealed, arguing (1) exclusion of immigration/U‑Visa evidence violated confrontation rights, (2) MetaBank printout was improperly admitted under the business‑records exception, and (3) (Dickerson) judgment of acquittal was wrongly denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of witness immigration status/U‑Visa evidence was proper	State: status irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, may deter reporting and invite a minitrial; no promise was made to witness	Defs: status and knowledge of U‑Visa show motive/bias to fabricate; Sixth Amendment right to full cross‑examination	Court: Exclusion violated defendants’ Confrontation Clause rights; evidence was relevant to bias and probative value outweighed prejudice — reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether MetaBank transaction printout was admissible under business‑records hearsay exception	State: foundation adequate; not prejudicial	Defs: hearsay, insufficient foundation—neither witness was qualified custodian nor could explain creation of record	Court: Admission was erroneous — foundation insufficient under SDCL 19‑19‑803(6); evidence improperly admitted; remand directs proper foundation if offered again
Whether denial of Dickerson’s motion for judgment of acquittal was erroneous	State: evidence sufficient to go to jury	Dickerson: insufficient evidence to sustain convictions	Court: Did not reach this issue on appeal because reversal/remand is required on confrontation/hearsay errors

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (right to probe witness bias by cross‑examination)
Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (cross‑examination of motive is important to confrontation right)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (limits on cross‑examination reviewed for Confrontation Clause error and harmlessness)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (Confrontation Clause principles)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (cross‑examination part of truth‑seeking function)
Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (context on confrontation and cross‑examination)
State v. Carothers, 692 N.W.2d 544 (S.D.) (Confrontation Clause and cross‑examination standards)
State v. Kryger, 907 N.W.2d 800 (S.D.) (limits on cross‑examination reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Stokes, 895 N.W.2d 351 (S.D.) (business‑records foundation requirements)
Romero‑Perez v. Commonwealth, 492 S.W.3d 902 (Ky. Ct. App.) (U‑Visa application evidence relevant to bias/motive)
State v. Valle, 298 P.3d 1237 (Or. Ct. App.) (U‑Visa application admissible to show motive to testify favorably)
Carrero‑Vasquez v. State, 63 A.3d 647 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (exclusion of immigrant‑status evidence violated confrontation rights)