State v. Evans, 956 N.W.2d 68

Background:

Evans had a volatile romantic relationship with S.B.; she obtained a protection order after threats, harassment, and prior incidents of coercive behavior.
On Sept. 6–7, 2017 S.B. reported being bound with duct tape, raped, and otherwise assaulted; physical injuries and DNA linked Evans to the assault.
State agents traced Evans’s phone to the Pine Ridge Reservation, located his truck at a casino, and — with tribal officers on scene — found Evans in a hotel room; state arrest and search warrants were later obtained and executed for the hotel room and Evans’s pickup.
Evidence seized from the room, vehicle, and S.B.’s property (including duct tape, gloves, an Ambien bottle with S.B.’s name, writings, and DNA results) supported charges: rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, stalking, protection-order violation, and burglary.
Pretrial, the court admitted other-act testimony from Evans’s ex-wife (incidents in 1993–94) to show motive/common plan; Evans moved to suppress evidence seized on the Reservation and later objected to voir dire procedures and certain lay-opinion testimony at trial.
A jury convicted Evans on all counts; he appealed raising four primary issues (other-act evidence, jury selection procedure, suppression/jurisdiction, and Agent Goble’s testimony). The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-act evidence (ex-wife)	Other-act testimony was relevant to motive, common plan, and intent and its probative value outweighed prejudice.	Evidence was remote (27 years), dissimilar, and prejudicial; admission (and refusal to give a pretestimony limiting instruction) was reversible error.	Affirmed: admission proper for motive/common plan/intent; similarities outweighed remoteness; final limiting instruction cured any error from refusing a pretestimony instruction.
Voir dire / jury-selection procedure	Court’s general/chambers questioning was permissible; parties had opportunity to examine and pass jurors for cause.	Court deviated from SDCL ch. 23A-20, excusing jurors in chambers and conducting case-specific questions without counsel first — structural error requiring reversal.	No structural error: statute allows court to conduct general exam and to excuse for cause; defendant waived objections and failed to show actual prejudice.
Motion to suppress — state officers’ authority on Reservation	State could enter Reservation, coordinate with tribal officers, and execute state warrants to seize non-Indian property for off-reservation crimes; tribal interests were respected.	State officers lacked jurisdiction to seize property on Reservation without tribal warrant or compact; seizure violated tribal sovereignty and suppression required.	Denial of suppression affirmed: execution of state warrants on Reservation for crimes committed off Reservation is permissible (Hicks/Cummings II principles); neither defendant nor victim were tribal members and tribal sovereignty was not infringed.
Admission of Agent Goble’s lay-opinion corroboration	Agent’s observations and photographs rationally supported a lay corroborative opinion about consistency of injuries with victim’s account.	Agent’s testimony lacked foundation, invaded the jury’s role, and improperly vouched for the victim.	No abuse of discretion: testimony was permissible lay opinion (SDCL 19-19-701), careful phrasing avoided vouching or expert conclusion; court properly limited an impermissible ultimate-conclusion question.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lassiter, 692 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 2005) (discusses limits on other-act evidence and need for similarity to prove motive)
State v. Wright, 593 N.W.2d 792 (S.D. 1999) (framework for admitting other-act evidence for purposes other than character; common-plan analysis)
State v. Boe, 847 N.W.2d 315 (S.D. 2014) (probative vs. prejudicial balancing for other-act evidence)
Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2001) (state officers may enter reservation to execute process related to off-reservation state-law violations)
State v. Spotted Horse, 462 N.W.2d 463 (S.D. 1990) (earlier rule limiting state jurisdiction in reservation contexts; discussed and abrogated in part)
State v. Cummings (Cummings I), 679 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 2004) (pre-Cummings II decision on state officer activity in Indian country)
State v. Cummings (Cummings II), 954 N.W.2d 731 (S.D. 2021) (clarifies limits of Spotted Horse/Cummings I and endorses Hicks reasoning for consensual/state investigations concerning off-reservation crimes)
State v. Madsen, 760 N.W.2d 370 (S.D. 2009) (distinguishes application of tribal/ICRA constraints where tribal actors are involved; cited to reject defendant’s reliance here)
State v. Rose, 324 N.W.2d 894 (S.D. 1982) (limiting instructions can cure potential prejudice from properly admitted other-act evidence)