State v. Stokes
895 N.W.2d 351
S.D.2017Background
- Defendant Nathan Stokes was charged with multiple counts after an August 13, 2015 incident at his ex‑girlfriend Lyndsey Braunesreither’s home; facts in dispute centered on whether Stokes was present and assaulted her or was at home texting.
- Braunesreither testified Stokes forced entry, sprayed pepper spray, wrestled with her, and left; police observed pepper spray residue, a damaged garage side door, and a displaced barstool.
- Stokes testified he was home sick and texting friends on the evening in question.
- The State offered Exhibit 14, a purported Verizon text‑message log showing no texts from Stokes between 8:50 p.m. and 9:22 p.m., to rebut Stokes’s alibi.
- The circuit court admitted Exhibit 14 over defense objection without testimony from a custodian or a certification establishing the business‑records foundation; the court relied on perceived inherent reliability of cell‑phone records.
- Jury convicted Stokes of two misdemeanors (simple assault and intentional damage to property) and acquitted on several other counts; Stokes appealed the admission of the cell‑phone records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stokes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit 14 was admissible under the business‑records hearsay exception (SDCL 19‑19‑803(6)) | The record is authenticated by Stokes’ concessions (phone number, carrier) and is inherently reliable; authentication under SDCL 19‑19‑901 suffices | State failed to produce custodian or certification showing record was made/kept in ordinary course of business; Stokes’ limited concessions did not lay required foundation | Reversed: trial court erred as a matter of law by admitting Exhibit 14 without custodian testimony or compliant certification; authentication alone does not satisfy business‑records foundation |
| Whether the evidentiary error was harmless | Other evidence (victim testimony, physical evidence) was sufficient and the log was merely cumulative | Admission was prejudicial because the log was central to resolving the credibility dispute about presence at the scene | Not harmless: error likely affected the verdict; new trial ordered on the two convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (addresses testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause)
- Brown v. State, 480 N.W.2d 761 (S.D. 1992) (discusses business‑records foundation and harmless‑error standard)
- DuBray v. S.D. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 690 N.W.2d 657 (S.D. 2004) (explains custodian/or other qualified witness requirement for business records)
- Martin v. State, 859 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Berget v. State, 853 N.W.2d 45 (S.D. 2014) (presumption of correctness for trial court evidentiary rulings)
- Johnson v. O’Farrell, 787 N.W.2d 307 (S.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion where admission violates evidentiary rule)
- United States v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 902(11) allows written certification in lieu of oral foundation for business records)
- Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 833 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (authentication and hearsay foundation are distinct requirements)