State v. Thomas, 922 N.W.2d 9

Background

Defendant Christian A. Thomas was tried and convicted on 26 counts of sexual offenses involving two minors (K.V. and B.B.), charged for acts alleged to have occurred 2008–2014.
The State sought to admit "other acts" evidence under SDCL 19-19-404(b): internet search histories (terms like “teen,” “jailbait,” “incest,” etc.) and photographs of Thomas piercing his penis.
The internet-search files and piercing photos were recovered from computers in Thomas’s household; forensic evidence linked the computers to Thomas.
The State argued the searches and piercing photos were admissible to show motive, intent, plan, and to help establish the timeline (i.e., that some acts occurred while a victim was under 16).
The trial court admitted the internet-search evidence and the piercing photos after applying relevance and Rule 403 balancing, and denied a mistrial motion based on the bailiff’s former employment with the State’s Attorney (but replaced the bailiff mid-trial).
Thomas was convicted on all counts and received consecutive sentences totaling 79 years; he appealed the admission of other-acts evidence and the denial of mistrial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of internet-search histories as other-acts evidence	Searches show plan, intent, and motive and contradict defendant’s claim he preferred older women	Searches were from mainstream adult sites (actors likely of legal age), post-dated offenses, and the State failed to show dates for many searches; prejudicial	Admitted — court found searches relevant to motive/plan/timeline and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice
Admissibility of photos of defendant piercing his penis	Photos help fix timeline (piercing dated before victim turned 16) and corroborate victim testimony about timing	Irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; State lacked definitive physical proof that piercing existed at relevant time	Admitted — court held photos were highly probative on timeline and any prejudice was not unfair
Sufficiency of State’s proof that defendant conducted the searches and photos	Forensic links (user profiles, computer name, photos of defendant, lewd victim photos) tie files to defendant’s computers	Others had access to computers; defense asserted inadequate proof at pretrial hearing	Sufficient — jury could find by preponderance that defendant conducted searches; no abuse of discretion in admission
Motion for mistrial based on bailiff’s prior employment with prosecutor	State showed no improper communications and rebutted presumption of prejudice; bailiff’s connections were remote	Appearance of impropriety in small county could have influenced jurors; jurors weren’t questioned about recognition	Denied — no actual or presumed prejudice shown; court acted within discretion and replaced bailiff to neutralize perception

Key Cases Cited

State v. Medicine Eagle, 835 N.W.2d 886 (S.D. 2013) (other-acts evidence may be admitted to show common plan or scheme, even if subsequent to charged acts)
State v. Phillips, 906 N.W.2d 411 (S.D. 2018) (Rule 404(b) is one of inclusion; evidence admissible for purposes other than character)
State v. Wright, 593 N.W.2d 792 (S.D. 1999) (once relevant, Rule 403 balance favors admission unless dangers substantially outweigh probative value)
State v. Swallow, 350 N.W.2d 606 (S.D. 1984) (improper juror contact requires showing of prejudice; trial court may find contact harmless)
State v. Williams, 748 N.W.2d 435 (S.D. 2008) (state may rebut presumption of prejudice from improper juror contact by showing harmlessness)
Budoff v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 732 F.2d 1523 (6th Cir. 1984) (intentional extrajudicial contact with juror’s family can require new trial)