State v. Ortiz-Martinez, 995 N.W.2d 239

Ortiz-Martinez was tried on two counts of first-degree rape against his stepdaughter L.V., alleging incidents at an “old house” and a “new house.”
L.V. previously gave a recorded forensic interview at Child’s Voice describing multiple instances of sexual abuse over several years; the video was not admitted at trial but both sides referenced its contents.
At trial the prosecutor asked whether the abuse happened more than two times; L.V. answered yes. Defense cross-examination used the Child’s Voice interview to impeach location/details, prompting testimony that indicated other uncharged incidents.
On redirect the prosecutor asked clarifying questions that elicited testimony about multiple additional rapes; defense did not contemporaneously object but later moved for a mistrial claiming lack of Rule 404(b) notice.
The court denied the mistrial, concluding the defense had opened the door to other-acts testimony; the court gave the State’s ‘‘other acts’’ instruction but refused the defendant’s proposed admonition to disregard extra-accusation testimony.
Jury convicted on both counts; defendant appealed denial of mistrial and denial of his proposed jury instruction. Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial for introduction of uncharged conduct was an abuse of discretion	State: No abuse — defense opened the door and evidence was plausibly admissible as intrinsic/other-purpose or by acquiescence; no actual prejudice	Ortiz-Martinez: Trial court erred because State introduced 404(b) other-acts evidence without required notice, prejudicing his right to a fair trial	Court affirmed — plausible bases for admission (intrinsic, opened door); no showing of actual prejudice; denial not an abuse of discretion
Whether refusal of defendant’s proposed instruction on other acts was an abuse of discretion	State: Given instruction adequately limited jury’s use of other-acts evidence; curative instruction presumption applies	Ortiz-Martinez: Requested instruction was necessary to prevent juror consideration of uncharged acts to infer guilt on charged counts	Court affirmed — trial court’s instruction correctly stated the limiting principle and defendant failed to show prejudice

State v. Red Cloud, 972 N.W.2d 517 (S.D. 2022) (mistrial/actual-prejudice standard for denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Thomas, 922 N.W.2d 9 (S.D. 2019) (describing mistrial standard and requirement of showing actual prejudice)
State v. Kryger, 907 N.W.2d 800 (S.D. 2018) (discussing mistrial remedies for juror contact and trial irregularities)
State v. Floody, 481 N.W.2d 242 (S.D. 1992) (intrinsic/res gestae admission of repeated child-rape statements)
Kostel v. Schwartz, 756 N.W.2d 363 (S.D. 2008) (Rule 404(b) list of purposes is nonexclusive)
State v. Taylor, 948 N.W.2d 342 (S.D. 2020) (opening-the-door doctrine permits otherwise inadmissible evidence)
State v. Fool Bull, 745 N.W.2d 380 (S.D. 2008) (preservation rules and problems with belated objections to evidence admissibility)
State v. Dillon, 788 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2010) (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)