State v. Hannemann
2012 S.D. 79
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Hannemann convicted of arson in Watertown for a fire in her apartment on Nov. 1, 2010.
- Evidence included fire investigators from insurers who believed arson; experts analyzed carpet accelerant residue and electrical devices.
- Defense counsel did not obtain a court-appointed arson expert, chemist, or independent testing, nor did counsel file a Daubert motion.
- Jury heard testimony from fire investigators, electrical engineers, and a chemist supporting arson; other evidence suggested intentional setting.
- After trial Hannemann filed motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial on ineffective assistance grounds; motions were denied.
- On appeal, Hannemann argues the circuit court abused its discretion by denying relief and excluding an out-of-court statement by her estranged sister
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Hannemann alleges trial counsel failed to secure an arson expert and to challenge State evidence | State contends the record shows viable trial strategy and matters require habeas review | Not ripe on direct appeal; must be resolved in a habeas proceeding |
| Exclusion of out-of-court statement by Tofteland | Statement offered to support theory that Tofteland set the fire; not hearsay or verbal act | Statement is hearsay and non-probative, correctly excluded | Exclusion affirmed; testimony inadmissible as hearsay/verbal act |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thomas, 2011 S.D. 15, 796 N.W.2d 706 (SD 2011) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- Harrington v. Richter, 563 U.S. 356? (U.S. 2011) (defining deficient performance and prejudice standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance framework; objective reasonableness)
- State v. Zephier, 2012 S.D. 16, 810 N.W.2d 770 (SD 2012) (review standard for denial of motion for new trial/appeals under abuse-of-discretion)
- State v. Danielson, 2012 S.D. 36, 814 N.W.2d 401 (SD 2012) (de novo review for sufficiency of evidence; standard of review on appeal)
- Richey v. Bradshaw, 498 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to rebut arson evidence; habeas context)