State v. Hauge, 2013 SD 26

Sheriff Bartlett and DEA received a tip that Hauge was growing marijuana in his yard near the back door in Alexandria; officers observed marijuana plants in a flower bed adjacent to the residence.
The next day, officers saw marijuana plants in the backyard; the flower bed measured roughly 14–15 feet by 3 feet and the surrounding grass had been mowed.
Hauge was questioned; he asked about signing a search form and claimed Brenda planted the plants; he later said he had paperwork claiming it was legal to grow.
Hauge signed the permission-to-search form; officers pulled over 200 plants, which were transported to the sheriff’s office and dried for 60–90 days.
The State Health Lab identified the dried plants as marijuana weighing 23.8 ounces; Hauge was charged on October 19, 2011 with possession of one to ten pounds.
On May 18, 2012 the jury convicted Hauge of possession; he was sentenced to ten years with six years suspended; his affidavit for change of judge was denied as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supported a judgment of acquittal.	State contends evidence showed knowing possession.	Hauge argues no dominion or control and no noxious-weed duty.	No error; sufficient evidence supported conviction.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying proposed jury instructions.	State.	Hauge’s noxious-weeds theory warranted instruction.	No abuse; instructions correctly stated the law.
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a jury view of the residence.	State.	Jurors should view property to support defense theory.	No abuse; photographs and evidence adequate; view not required.
Whether the judge should have recused himself under SDCL 15-12-37.	Appearance of impartiality compromised by prior matters and community perception.	Judge’s impartiality not reasonably questioned; no disqualification.	No recusal required; discretion exercised within proper bounds.

State v. Janklow, 2005 S.D. 25 (S.D. 2005) (sufficiency and standard for judgment of acquittal; de novo review)
State v. Jucht, 2012 S.D. 66 (S.D. 2012) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary and instructional rulings; standard of review)
State v. Roach, 2012 S.D. 91 (S.D. 2012) (instructional-choice abuse-of-discretion and prejudice analysis)
State v. Klaudt, 2009 S.D. 71 (S.D. 2009) (meaningful opportunity to present complete defense; support in evidence)
State v. Engesser, 2003 S.D. 47 (S.D. 2003) (prejudice required for instructional error to warrant reversal)