948 N.W.2d 342
S.D.2020Background
- In November 2017 M.R. attended a concert in Deadwood with A.F.; later that night Taylor entered M.R.’s hotel room, and M.R. alleges he forcibly vaginally and anally penetrated her, attempted oral penetration, and later masturbated on her while she awoke.
- M.R. reported the assault; vaginal and anal swabs contained sperm matching Taylor’s DNA. Taylor was indicted for second-degree rape and attempted rape of M.R.; separate misdemeanor sexual-contact charges involved A.F.
- The State sought and the trial court allowed other-act (404(b)) evidence from two other alleged victims (P.R. and T.B.) describing similar nonconsensual sexual encounters; DCI lab reports linking Taylor to those incidents were admitted via affidavit rather than live testimony.
- A jury convicted Taylor of second-degree rape (M.R.) and two counts of sexual contact (A.F.); Taylor admitted two prior felonies for sentencing enhancement and received 50 years (20 suspended).
- Taylor appealed raising: admissibility of other-act evidence, Double Jeopardy/Due Process, denial of mistrial, sufficiency of evidence, Confrontation Clause challenge to lab-report affidavits, and Eighth Amendment disproportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-act evidence (404(b)) | Evidence shows common plan, intent, and negates consent; relevant to intent and mistake-of-fact defense | Evidence was improper character evidence, unduly prejudicial and remote | Admitted: court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice and was relevant to consent/intent |
| Double Jeopardy / Due Process re: prior acquittal (P.R.) | Admission is proper under 404(b); prior acquittal does not collaterally estop relitigation under Dowling | Prior acquittal should bar relitigation; admission violates due process | Rejected: Dowling controls; prior acquittal does not bar admission under 404(b); no due-process violation |
| Mistrial re: alleged witness coaching (A.F. and Fitcher) | No misconduct shown and any sequestration violation did not prejudice Taylor | A.F. tampered with Fitcher, violating sequestration and warranting mistrial | Denied: no evidence testimony was influenced; any issue was immaterial and not prejudicial |
| Motion for judgment of acquittal (sufficiency) | Evidence (victim testimony, exam, DNA) supports conviction | Insufficient evidence to prove nonconsent beyond reasonable doubt | Denied: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Confrontation Clause re: DCI lab reports admitted by affidavit | Reports were admissible under SDCL 23-3-19.3; analysts not necessary to prove other-act sexual contact | Admission violated Sixth Amendment (Bullcoming/Crawford) because analysts did not testify | Error to admit without analysts, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given other testimony and DNA’s limited role (corroboration of intercourse, not consent) |
| Eighth Amendment disproportionality of sentence | Sentence within statutory maximum and considers prior felonies; not grossly disproportionate | 50-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense | Denied: sentence within statutory limits and not grossly disproportionate; appellate de novo review affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (prior acquittal does not collaterally estop admission of similar-act evidence under 404(b))
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (forensic analyst’s certification is testimonial; Confrontation Clause requires opportunity to cross-examine testifying analyst)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation; reliability alone insufficient)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (threshold relevance test for admitting prior-act evidence under 404(b))
- State v. Thomas, 922 N.W.2d 9 (S.D. 2019) (state standard that other-act evidence requires preponderance that acts occurred and defendant was actor)
- State v. Stone, 925 N.W.2d 488 (S.D. 2019) (two-part admissibility test: relevance to material issue other than character and 403 balancing)
- State v. Lassiter, 692 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 2005) (404(b) evidence admissible when necessary to prove element, not merely character)
- State v. Richmond, 935 N.W.2d 792 (S.D. 2019) (harmless-error framework for Confrontation Clause violations)