State v. Hankins, 982 N.W.2d 21

Background

Defendant Nathan Hankins was indicted on two counts of first‑degree rape of a child under 13 (digital penetration and cunnilingus) with alternative lesser sexual contact counts; a Part II information alleged a prior first‑degree rape conviction.
Victim R.H., then ~9 at forensic interview and 11 at trial, disclosed that Hankins touched and kissed her vagina with his hand, mouth, and tongue; a recorded forensic interview was played for the jury.
Dr. Cara Hamilton performed a medical exam that was physically normal but she testified a normal exam can be consistent with delayed disclosure of sexual abuse.
The State introduced a text exchange in which Hankins made incriminating statements to a former partner; family witnesses testified about disclosures and household dynamics.
A jury convicted Hankins on both first‑degree rape counts; he was sentenced to consecutive terms. On appeal he challenged the arraignment, several evidentiary rulings, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arraignment adequacy (due process/SDCL 23A‑7‑1)	Arraignment satisfied statutory and constitutional requirements; defendant waived reading and was advised of charges, penalties, and rights.	Arraignment was inadequate: indictment not read aloud, elements not explained, insufficient time with counsel before plea/waiver.	Court: No error — waiver and individualized advisement met SDCL 23A‑7‑1 and due process; no plain error.
Dr. Hamilton testimony (hearsay / medical history)	Testimony about timing and perpetrator came within medical‑treatment/diagnosis exception and was permissible background.	Testimony was hearsay, prejudicial, and presented as expert assumption of assault.	Court: Admission proper (or harmless) — statements reasonably pertinent to treatment; victim later directly identified defendant and jury saw forensic interview.
Patricia’s testimony (sympathy/context, David’s drinking, opinion of R.H.’s truthfulness)	Testimony was relevant (context for disclosure, foundation for exhibits) and permitted opinion on truthfulness after credibility attack.	Testimony elicited sympathy for victim, irrelevant character evidence, and invaded jury’s role in credibility.	Court: No abuse — relevance shown, many objections not preserved; opinion on truthfulness allowed after truthfulness attacked.
Prosecutorial misconduct (direct exam and rebuttal closing)	Most questioning was proper; one rebuttal comment equating cross‑examination to "re‑raping" the child was improper but harmless given instructions and strong evidence.	Prosecutor repeatedly asked improper questions during direct; rebuttal comments were inflammatory, shifted burden, and denied fair trial.	Court: Misconduct occurred in rebuttal (prosecutor conceded improper remark) but not prejudicial — objection sustained, jury instructed, no mistrial sought, evidence of guilt strong.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Anderson, 831 N.W.2d 54 (S.D. 2013) (due process does not require particular arraignment form; adequate notice and opportunity to defend suffice)
State v. McMillen, 931 N.W.2d 725 (S.D. 2019) (plain‑error review framework for unpreserved issues)
State v. Guziak, 968 N.W.2d 196 (S.D. 2021) (elements of plain‑error analysis and cautious invocation)
State v. Thoman, 955 N.W.2d 759 (S.D. 2021) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and prejudice analysis)
State v. Packard, 935 N.W.2d 804 (S.D. 2019) (statements to medical personnel about abuse may be reasonably pertinent to treatment and admissible)
State v. Janis, 880 N.W.2d 76 (S.D. 2016) (foundational testimony and witness experience can support expert/perception testimony)
State v. Smith, 599 N.W.2d 344 (S.D. 1999) (prosecutorial misconduct reversible only if it so infects the trial as to deny due process)