State v. Golliher-Weyer, 2016 SD 10

In October 2013, defendant Joseph Golliher-Weyer (then 18) was accused by A.A. (then 14) of sexual intercourse; charged with fourth-degree rape under SDCL 22-22-1(5).
At trial defense sought to introduce evidence of A.A.’s prior sexual encounters and alleged prior false sexual allegations; State objected under SDCL 19-19-412 (Rule 412) and for lack of timely pretrial notice.
The circuit court denied a Rule 412 hearing because defense did not file the required motion 14 days before trial and limited cross-examination to entries in A.A.’s school agenda implicating the defendant.
Jury convicted Weyer; before sentencing the court ordered psychosexual and psychological evaluations. Weyer refused release of juvenile records, but the evaluator relied on juvenile psychological records in the report.
At sentencing the court considered the evaluator’s report (including juvenile records) and imposed 15 years with 7 suspended. Weyer appealed asserting ineffective assistance, erroneous denial of a Rule 412 hearing, abuse in limiting cross-examination, and improper use of juvenile records at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance for failure to file Rule 412 motion	State: trial record insufficient to find ineffective assistance on direct appeal	Weyer: counsel misunderstood Rule 412 and based strategy on error; prejudice resulted	Court declined to decide on direct appeal; record insufficient—remedy via habeas for fuller record
2. Denial of Rule 412 hearing during trial	State: court properly exercised discretion and found no good cause to hold hearing during trial	Weyer: statute permits good-cause filing during trial; court misinterpreted statutory discretion	Court: trial court misread Rule 412 (14-day notice not absolute) but error harmless—no prejudice shown
3. Limitation on cross-examination about victim’s sexual history	State: limitation proper under Rule 412 and court discretion	Weyer: victim ‘opened the door’ by mentioning an agenda listing sexual partners, so broader impeachment allowed	Court: no abuse of discretion—victim’s comment did not open door to unrelated prior sexual encounters
4. Use of juvenile psychological records at sentencing	State: sentencing court may consider history and evaluators’ reports	Weyer: juvenile actions should not affect adult sentencing; use of juvenile records improper	Court: allowed—juvenile records were relevant to psychosexual evaluation and sentencing choices

State v. Thomas, 796 N.W.2d 706 (S.D. 2011) (standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice)
State v. Dillon, 632 N.W.2d 37 (S.D. 2001) (limit on addressing ineffectiveness on direct appeal; prior-allegations admissibility standard)
State v. Petersen, 515 N.W.2d 687 (S.D. 1994) (habeas as vehicle to develop record for ineffectiveness claims)
State v. Guthmiller, 667 N.W.2d 295 (S.D. 2003) (prior sexual-allegation evidence admissible only if demonstrably false)
State v. Fool Bull, 745 N.W.2d 380 (S.D. 2008) (prejudice requirement for reversal on evidentiary error)
State v. Pugh, 640 N.W.2d 79 (S.D. 2002) (relevance and materiality requirements for admitting prior sexual-history evidence)
State v. Most, 815 N.W.2d 560 (S.D. 2012) (mere denial insufficient to prove prior allegations false)