State v. Goodshot, 2017 SD 33

In August 2015 Goodshot confronted Maldonado-Molina with a machete; Maldonado-Molina fired two shots and Goodshot fled in a vehicle that later rolled over. Blood, a machete, tire irons, and Goodshot’s credit card were found at the crash; Goodshot was later found with a tourniquet and wounds.
Shortly after Goodshot’s arrest, the homeowner Debra Cummings discovered her house had been burglarized and bloody prints and DNA at the scene matched Goodshot.
Two indictments were returned: one (August 27, 2015) charging aggravated assault, tampering with a motor vehicle, hit and run, and driving without a license; a second (December 16, 2015) charging second-degree burglary based on the Cummings break-in.
The State moved to join the two indictments for trial; the circuit court granted joinder over Goodshot’s objection, finding the offenses were of similar character and part of the res gestae.
At trial the court admitted evidence that an unknown bystander reported Goodshot might be armed; the court reasoned this was not offered for its truth but to explain why a S.W.A.T. team was deployed.
After a four-day jury trial Goodshot was convicted on all counts; he appealed the joinder ruling and the admission of the bystander report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joinder of the two indictments was proper or unduly prejudicial	Joinder was proper because offenses were connected in time, location, and manner and formed a common scheme or res gestae	Joinder unfairly prejudiced Goodshot by portraying him as a bad person and impairing separate defenses	Court affirmed: joinder proper under SDCL 23A-6-23; defendant failed to show sufficient prejudice to justify severance
Whether admission of bystander’s report that Goodshot "may have possessed a gun" was improper hearsay or unduly prejudicial	Report was relevant to explain law enforcement’s deployment of S.W.A.T. and not offered for its truth	The statement was irrelevant, hearsay, and prejudicial	Court affirmed: statement admissible as non-hearsay explanatory evidence; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice

State v. Waugh, 805 N.W.2d 480 (S.D. 2011) (joinder and prejudice standard; burden on party opposing joinder)
State v. Bradley, 782 N.W.2d 674 (S.D. 2010) (joinder/res gestae discussion)
State v. Dowty, 838 N.W.2d 820 (S.D. 2013) (res gestae admissibility of connected events)
State v. Stark, 802 N.W.2d 165 (S.D. 2011) (res gestae exception to other-acts evidence rule)
State v. Wright, 768 N.W.2d 512 (S.D. 2009) (explaining res gestae test)
State v. Hannemann, 823 N.W.2d 357 (S.D. 2012) (presumption of correctness for trial court evidentiary rulings)
State v. Martin, 859 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2015) (admission of 911/bystander reports to provide context)
State v. Johnson, 771 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2009) (admission of out-of-court statements for contextual explanation)