State v. Roach
2012 SD 91
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Roach was convicted of second-degree rape after trial.
- H.S. seeks to terminate relationship; Roach and H.S. previously had consent-based sex during their relationship.
- On Feb. 7, 2011, Roach entered H.S.’s apartment, attempted to have sex, and H.S. repeatedly refused.
- Roach forced H.S. onto the floor, penetrated, and ejaculated; H.S. suffered injuries.
- N.R., H.S.’s roommate, later reported to police that H.S. was raped; Roach was indicted March 31, 2011.
- Roach was convicted after trial and sentenced to 15 years with 5 suspended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent defense jury instruction denial | Roach—consent defense supported by law | State—consent not element of forcible rape | Instruction denied; correct law stated overall |
| Mason statements admissibility under Rule 803(4) | Statements not pertinent to diagnosis/treatment; not admissible | Some statements admissible; some waived due to failure to object | Issue waived; not reviewed on appeal |
| Batson challenge to jury strike | State failed to provide race-neutral justification | State offered race-neutral reasons based on demeanor and responses | Strike upheld as race-neutral; conviction affirmed |
| Officer Terviel excited utterance admissibility | Statements not under stress of excitement | Record supports excited utterance; trial court abused discretion if not | Court permitted under Rule 803(2); admission proper |
| Use of word 'rape' during trial | Prejudicial violent-labeling; constitutes legal conclusion | Word used as shorthand; not prejudicial given full instructions | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice; word allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Faehnrich, 359 N.W.2d 895 (S.D. 1984) (consent may be a defense only when it utterly negates force or threat)
- Woodfork, 454 N.W.2d 332 (S.D. 1990) (approve mistake-of-fact instruction over consent instruction)
- Klaudt, 2009 S.D. 71, 772 N.W.2d 117 (S.D. 2009) (instructions must be read as a whole; provide meaningful defense)
- Orelup, 492 N.W.2d 101 (S.D. 1992) (trial court must make explicit findings on excited-utterance analysis)
- Midgett, 2004 S.D. 57, 680 N.W.2d 288 (S.D. 2004) (excited utterance requires evaluating state of excitement and record evidence)