State v. Scott
927 N.W.2d 120
S.D.2019Background
- Defendant Scott was convicted of aggravated assault (two counts) after incidents in which he allegedly assaulted his wife, Tasina, and Sonia; one count involved an alleged hammer threat.
- Officer Huemoeller testified about the nature of scratches/bruises on Tasina's hands, describing defensive and offensive wound patterns and opining the wounds did not appear offensive.
- Defense objected to the officer’s opinion as requiring expert foundation; the court overruled and admitted the testimony.
- The defense conceded at trial that Scott assaulted Tasina (denying only the hammer use); trial focused on whether a hammer assault occurred and whether victims were placed in fear.
- Scott moved for judgments of acquittal on aggravated assault-by-physical-menace counts and later challenged (1) admission of the officer’s wound-opinion, (2) sufficiency of evidence that victims were put in fear, and (3) the inclusion of a “domestic” notation in the judgment without a jury finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer's opinion about offensive vs. defensive wounds | State: Officer's answers were lay perceptions of observed injuries and helpful to understanding her testimony | Scott: Officer lacked medical/scientific foundation to opine on forensic distinctions; testimony prejudiced jury about who was aggressor | Court: Admission not reversible error — testimony was equivocal and nonprejudicial given trial record admitting Scott's aggression |
| Sufficiency of evidence that victims were placed in fear of imminent serious bodily harm (aggravated assault by physical menace) | State: Witnesses testified Scott raised a hammer over Sonia and Tasina; victims or bystanders believed he would strike them | Scott: He attempted to flee and told Sonia to leave him alone; no evidence victims were actually in fear (Tasina did not testify) | Court: Evidence (hammer raised, victims' reactions, screams, interruption) sufficed for jury to find attempt to place victims in fear beyond reasonable doubt |
| Inclusion of "domestic" notation in judgment without jury finding | State: Statute requires prosecutor/court indicate whether charge involves domestic abuse; notation does not change crime or punishment | Scott: Adding "domestic" imposes statutory $25 cost akin to a punitive fine raising Apprendi/Southern Union concerns and required jury finding | Court: Oral sentence did not impose the $25 domestic cost; notation improperly included but did not affect conviction—remand to amend judgment to remove "domestic" notation (no new trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buchholtz, 841 N.W.2d 449 (S.D. 2013) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Reay, 762 N.W.2d 356 (S.D. 2009) (material prejudice standard for overturning evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Thayer, 713 N.W.2d 608 (S.D. 2006) (oral sentence controls when ambiguity exists)
- S. Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (judicial factfinding cannot increase criminal penalties or fines)
- State v. Outka, 844 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2014) (domestic-abuse notation does not change nature of the crime)