STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ricky L. BYRD, Defendant and Appellant.
Nos. 15244, 15245
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Dec. 30, 1986.
397 N.W.2d 747
An accomplice is one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial. To render one an accomplice, he must in some manner knowingly and with criminal intent participate, associate, or concur with another in the commission of a crime. Grooms v. State, 320 N.W.2d 149 (S.D.1982); State v. Johnson, 81 S.D. 600, 139 N.W.2d 232 (1965). Whether one is an accomplice may be a question of law for the court or one of fact for the jury depending upon the state of the evidence. Id. If the facts as to a witness’ participation in a crime are disputed or susceptible of different inferences, the question is one of fact for the jury. Johnson, supra; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 797 (and cases cited therein).
In this case, the facts concerning Mahan‘s role in cashing the check are certainly susceptible of differing inferences. Mahan reported the incident to the police immediately after learning the check was a forgery; he also testified that he had believed the check was authentic. To some extent, Mahan himself was “conned” or “duped” into cashing the check by Lingwall. Therefore, Mahan‘s complicity in the crime is questionable, and the trial court properly submitted the question to the jury.
4. CORROBORATION
In addition, we note that Lingwall‘s own testimony was sufficient to corroborate Mahan‘s testimony. Lingwall admitted on direct examination that she asked Mahan to cash the forged check and that she received $1,600 in proceeds from the check. She also testified that she staged the fake phone call and lied to Mahan to allay his concerns about the validity of the check. Consequently, her contention is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FOSHEIM, Retired Justice, participating.
MILLER, J., not having been a member of the court at the time this action was submitted to the court, did not participate.
Steve Miller of Cummings Legal Clinic, P.C., Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
WUEST, Chief Justice.
Appellant appeals two criminal convictions based on a claim the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over him to hear either case. We affirm.
On June 24, 1985, appellant Ricky L. Byrd (appellant) and two others stole a car in Sioux Falls and drove it to Rock Rapids, Iowa, where they vandalized and abandoned the car. Appellant was charged with grand theft which was later amended to the misdemeanor offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Following his initial court appearance on the theft charges, the court reduced the pre-trial detention restrictions and authorized work release from the county jail. Defendant did not return to jail as ordered. A week later, he turned himself in to the authorities in Decatur, Georgia. He was charged with escape and later convicted on both counts and sentenced to time served in the county jail on the misdemeanor charge and five years at the South Dakota Penitentiary on the escape charge. At the time of committing both offenses the appellant was over 18 years of age but was under probationary supervision as a juvenile under the provisions of
Appellant does not challenge guilt of either offense. Rather, he contends he was under the continuing jurisdiction of juvenile court as a “child” pursuant to
The State does not dispute that appellant was under the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile section of the circuit court at the time both offenses took place. However, State argues that defendant‘s view is erroneous. State also argues that defendant raised the issue before the trial court under the theft charge but neglected to do so under the escape charge and therefore did not preserve the issue for appeal. Although not raised by either party on appeal or at the trial level, this court may address jurisdiction sua sponte. In the Matter of the Grievance of Lehr v. Department of Labor, 391 N.W.2d 205 (S.D. 1986); State v. Waldner, 381 N.W.2d 273, 275 (S.D.1986).
Defendant claims he is not seeking an exemption from prosecution for crimes committed as an adult merely because he has committed other crimes before he reached the age of eighteen. Rather, he proffers that he is only seeking the protection afforded under the juvenile jurisdiction and transfer statutes.
A “delinquent child” is any child ten years or older who has committed a crime that is not petty in nature or involves hunting, fishing, boating, park or traffic laws.
The appellant stretches the plain meaning of
Whether or not an individual can be tried in a certain court is a jurisdictional issue, but
A person becomes an adult at age 18.
The purpose of rules of construction of statutes is to discover the true intention of the law, and said intention is to be ascertained primarily from the language expressed in the statute. Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984). The context in which the term “child” is used in ch. 26-8 plainly requires a different understanding of its true application than that which the appellant at
We affirm the decision of the trial court.
MORGAN and SABERS, JJ., and FOSHEIM, (Retired) J., concur.
HENDERSON, J., concurs with a writing.
MILLER, J., not having been a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate.
HENDERSON, Justice (concurring).
In this case, the defendant would have the highest Court of this state hold that he is exempt from the prosecution of crimes which he committed as an adult simply because he committed other crimes before he obtained the age of eighteen. This cannot be. A legal antinomy* would be created if juveniles, who have committed crimes in the past and who are under jurisdiction of the juvenile division of the circuit court, were exempt from adult court prosecution because they had a prior criminal history. When as a child, he is to be treated as a child. When as an adult, he is to be treated as an adult. This defendant was an adult, at the age of eighteen, when he committed these offenses. A person becomes an adult in South Dakota at the age of eighteen.
* An antinomy, in philosophical use, is a contradiction between two laws, principles, or conclusions; the term is applicable to one concept or thing which contradicts another concept or thing and is irreconcilable with it; “paradox” and “anomaly” are not true synonyms of “antinomy,” but all three express or reveal an inherent contradiction and are not always clearly distinguished or used.