State v. Loeschke, 980 N.W.2d 266

Defendant Robert Loeschke was indicted on multiple assault counts against his girlfriend from incidents on June 17, 2018 (broken jaw) and February 20, 2019 (stabbing); initial indictment contained 27 counts spanning several dates.
Trial 1 (Jan 2020) ended in a mistrial before the victim testified; victim unavailable at Trial 2 (Aug 2020), so the State proceeded on six counts (three for June 2018, three for Feb 2019).
While jailed, Loeschke made recorded phone calls to the victim; the State played portions at trial. Loeschke objected on hearsay grounds to the victim’s statements in those calls.
The jury convicted Loeschke of the three counts related to the Feb 20, 2019 stabbing and acquitted him of the June 17, 2018 assault counts; sentence imposed on the aggravated assault from the stabbing.
Loeschke appealed two rulings: denial of his pretrial motion to sever the joined counts, and the circuit court’s admission of the victim’s statements from the recorded jail calls.
Supreme Court affirmed: joinder was proper under the common-scheme/domestic-abuse framework; admission of some victim statements was erroneous but harmless given the other evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by denying severance of multiple assault counts	State: Joinder proper under SDCL 23A-6-23 — offenses form parts of a common scheme (ongoing domestic abuse) and some are closely related	Loeschke: Events too far apart in time, different manners/places; joinder prejudiced his ability to mount distinct defenses (self-defense vs. accident)	Court: Affirmed — joinder proper under common-scheme/domestic-abuse doctrine and defendant failed to show substantial prejudice requiring severance
Whether admission of victim’s recorded phone statements was admissible (hearsay/context)	State: Victim’s remarks were offered as non-hearsay context for Loeschke’s own admissions; limiting instruction given	Loeschke: Victim’s statements were hearsay (used for truth) and highly prejudicial because she did not testify	Court: Some victim statements were improperly admitted as contextual hearsay, but error was harmless given strong admissible evidence and defendant’s inconsistent statements

State v. Solis, 931 N.W.2d 253 (S.D. 2019) (common-scheme joinder and admissibility of prior domestic-abuse as Rule 404(b) evidence)
State v. Little Long, 962 N.W.2d 237 (S.D. 2021) (prejudicial admission under Rule 403 where jury likely to consider hearsay for truth despite limiting instruction)
State v. Waugh, 805 N.W.2d 480 (S.D. 2011) (same-or-similar-character joinder test guidance)
State v. Huber, 789 N.W.2d 283 (S.D. 2010) (prior domestic abuse admissible to rebut accident claim)
United States v. Taken Alive, 513 F.3d 899 (8th Cir.) (no substantial prejudice where evidence of one offense would be admissible in separate trial of the other)
State v. Kihega, 902 N.W.2d 517 (S.D. 2017) (statements used only as context for admissible admissions are not hearsay)