State v. Zephier
810 N.W.2d 770
S.D.2012Background
- Zephier was convicted of aggravated assault in the circuit court after he attacked Carlos Diaz in Donita Wika’s Vermillion apartment when Diaz came looking for Julia Marshall.
- Diaz entered Wika’s apartment after Marshall had left a house party, and Zephier struck Diaz in the face and kicked him after he fell.
- Zephier argued the force was justified as self-defense and to prevent trespass; the State contended there was no legal justification for the use of force.
- Before trial, Zephier proposed a jury instruction on when it is lawful to use force to prevent a trespass, which the court rejected.
- The trial court gave SDJIC 2-9-1 instead, and relied on SDCL 22-18-4 to limit when force may be used to prevent a trespass.
- Zephier moved for a new trial based on attorney misconduct and newly discovered evidence; the trial court denied; Zephier appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the trespass-force instruction was proper | Zephier argues the proposed instruction correctly stated the law on preventing trespass with force. | Zephier argues the pattern instruction, informed by SDCL 22-18-4, was overinclusive and improper. | No abuse; pattern instruction properly limits force to prevent trespass per SDCL 22-18-4. |
| Whether the denial of a new trial was proper | Zephier contends attorney misconduct and newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial. | State contends no misconduct and evidence would not change the outcome; new-trial standards unmet. | No abuse; no misconduct established and new evidence failed to meet requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe, 2011 S.D. 80 (S.D. 2011) (instruction must be correct, not misleading or conflicting)
- Bertelsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2011 S.D. 13 (S.D. 2011) (no discretion to give incorrect instructions)
- Corean v. State, 2010 S.D. 85 (S.D. 2010) (newly discovered evidence standards; extraordinary relief)
- Loen v. Anderson, 2005 S.D. 9 (S.D. 2005) (trial-counsel decisions as strategic, not misconduct)
- Denoyer v. Weber, 2005 S.D. 43 (S.D. 2005) (defense selection as trial strategy; rarely reevaluated)
- Shepard v. State, 2009 S.D. 50 (S.D. 2009) (newly discovered evidence factors)
- Hofer v. Class, 1998 S.D. 58 (S.D. 1998) (trial strategy and discretion standards)
- State v. Corean, 2010 S.D. 85 (S.D. 2010) (as above (duplicate entry kept for emphasis))