State v. Timmons, 974 N.W.2d 881

Timmons (35) and K.C. (19) were dating and fought at his home on April 9, 2020; K.C. alleges Timmons pinned her, wrapped his arm around her neck, impeded her breathing, and she feared passing out.
K.C. called 911 ~1 hour later; officer observed K.C. shaken, took photos of bruises/scratches/cut lip, and recorded her statements that she couldn’t breathe and had been choked.
Timmons claimed he was restraining K.C. after she attacked him and said their sexual history included consensual choking; he admitted prior contacting K.C. despite a no-contact order.
Indicted for aggravated assault under SDCL 22-18-1.1(8) (choking/impeding breathing) and tried; jury convicted; part II prior admitted, sentence imposed.
After trial, K.C. submitted a PSI letter saying she felt manipulated/threatened by prosecutors and regretted testifying; Timmons moved for a new trial based on the letter as surprise/newly discovered evidence.
Circuit court denied both the motion for judgment of acquittal at trial and the post-trial motion for new trial; Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Timmons)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (SDCL 22-18-1.1(8))	K.C.’s testimony, 911 call, officer interview, and injury photos show Timmons impeded breathing and attempted to induce fear of death/serious harm.	Evidence showed only restraint during a mutual physical confrontation; no proof Timmons intended to induce fear of death or serious bodily harm.	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; attempt to induce fear need not prove victim’s actual fear.
Motion for new trial based on K.C.’s PSI letter (surprise / newly discovered evidence)	Letter does not show coercion that would probably produce acquittal; State denies threatening K.C., and letter is cumulative/impeaching.	Letter reveals prosecutor coercion and that K.C. would have testified differently if not pressured; warrants a new trial.	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—letter was cumulative/impeaching, discoverable with diligence, and would likely not change verdict; no evidentiary hearing required.

State v. Frias, 959 N.W.2d 62 (S.D. 2021) (denial of motion for judgment of acquittal reviewed de novo)
State v. Wolf, 941 N.W.2d 216 (S.D. 2020) (sufficiency standard and appellate scope)
State v. Carter, 771 N.W.2d 329 (S.D. 2009) (evidentiary sufficiency review)
State v. LaCroix, 423 N.W.2d 169 (S.D. 1988) (actual fear not required for attempt-to-put-in-fear aggravated assault)
State v. Scott, 927 N.W.2d 120 (S.D. 2019) (accept evidence and favorable inferences supporting verdict)
State v. Zephier, 810 N.W.2d 770 (S.D. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial denial)
State v. Corean, 791 N.W.2d 44 (S.D. 2010) (elements for new-trial relief based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Gehm, 600 N.W.2d 535 (S.D. 1999) (skepticism toward newly discovered evidence claims without diligence)
State v. Feuillerat, 292 N.W.2d 326 (S.D. 1980) (newly discovered testimony that would not probably produce acquittal fails to warrant new trial)
Lodermeier v. [First State Bank], 481 N.W.2d 614 (S.D. 1992) (trial court discretion on new trials; impeachment evidence generally insufficient)