*1
STATE Appellant, DANIELSON, Defendant
Trent Appellee. 25271.
No. Dakota. 23, 2010.
Argued March May
Reassigned July
Decided
perjury trial was raised in the former trial. In dismissing perjury charge on double jeopardy grounds, the circuit court rea- soned that defendant’s truthfulness on whether he fixed a 1950 Studebaker had litigated been as an essential issue former case. But the question is whether verdict the former case neces- sarily decided the issue to be determined trial. Because the acquittal could have been based grounds accepting other than true as de- allegedly fendant’s false statements about Studebaker, fixing the we reverse and re- mand.
Background Rocket Lube of Spearf- ish, South hired Trent Danielson. He worked there both aas mechanic and painter auto until he in Septem- was fired ber 2006. Rocket reported Lube to the police that Danielson parts had stolen auto and had failed to remit checks for work on a done customer’s vehicle. All the checks from were Dr. Tom Cox for me- chanical performed. work Danielson Fitzgerald, County John H. Lawrence Deadwood, Attorney, State’s South Dako- Danielson was indicted on one [¶3.] ta, Attorney plaintiff appellant. count of theft under SDCL 22-30A- Frederickson, Francy John R. E. Foral 1 and SDCL 22-30A-17. An bill amended Office, P.C., of Frederickson Law Dead- particulars parts listed all the and mon- stole.1 wood, Dakota, Attorneys for defen- ey allegedly In the appellee. dant and presented the State evidence that the checks Danielson obtained from Dr. Cox KONENKAMP, (on reassign- Justice were of Rocket Lube. Danielson ment). a private he and Dr. Cox had requires case agreement, employment [¶ 1.] This us to decide outside his with defendant, Lube, acquitted perform whether a Rocket mechanical work theft, may prosecuted be on his on Dr. vehicles. testified Cox’s if pending arrangement the issue in the with Dr. Cox result- kits; particulars alleged U-joint repair spark 1. The bill of that the fol- two invoices for wires; lowing plug transactions formed the an invoice for an fuel basis electronic charge: Chevy; pump seven checks written Dr. Cox that for a 1949 an invoice for shocks defendant; struts; given were an invoice for a two invoices for an Edelbrock Jeep pan; body injector system Willys; oil throttle carburetor for a 1957 an invoice for Willys; Chevy; timing light; paint for a 1957 sensors for a 1949 and an for silver invoice Willys; Jeep. for a 1957 sensors an invoice for two for a 1957 employer’s behalf. where Dr. Cox told ed a discussion an outside with Dr. taking Rocket Lube was felt Danielson he work. According Daniel- Cox to mechanic’s He de- him. advantage of *3 1950 if scribed his on Dr. Cox’s Stude- son, him he would work work asked Dr. Cox baker, spare offering photographs prove even in his time to on vehicles Dr. Cox’s work. agreed, performed the claimed As doing Danielson save expenses. time, Danielson’s challenging father’s means credibili- the own his work on his ty, expert he the State called witnesses to also testified. While house. Dr. Cox show that had not worked on being felt he was over- Danielson agreed that he Lube, remarks, closing 1950 In he claimed that the Studebaker. charged by Rocket far as to acting prosecutor say was as an the went so he thought him if the “should find innocent” agent performing Rocket Lube when for the they believed Danielson did the his vehicles. work on work. jury found Danielson not [¶ 4.] afterwards, Shortly Relying on the fact work theft. grand performed count of on the 1950 Studebaker was
Danielson was indicted
one
the
alleged
disputed
that counsel for
State
perjury. The indictment
that dur-
dispute
closing
theft
trial
re-
ing
grand
he underscored this
marks,
saying
maintains that when the
falsely by
that “he
jury acquitted
him it concluded that he
replaced parts inside
transmission
on the 1950
pick-up performed
Dr.
Studebaker
the work
Studebak-
Tom Cox’s 1950
truck,”
actually
argues
er. But
that it
no such work was
the State
was
when
necessary
the in-
to determine wheth-
done. Danielson moved
dismiss
for
er Danielson did the work
order to
prohibition
dictment as a violation
acquit him
against
jeopardy guaranteed by
theft.
double
South Dakota and United States constitu-
The Fifth Amendment of
Const,
V;
tions.
amend.
SD
See U.S.
the United
and Article
States Constitution
Const,
VI, §
argued
art.
Six of the
Dakota Constitution for
South
collaterally
estopped
State was
placing person
jeopardy
bids
twice for
out of
prosecuting
perjury arising
him for
Const,
V;
the same offense. U.S.
amend.
acquitted.
he
his
trial in which
Const,
§
In
v.
SD
art.
9.2 Ashe
Swen
VI
Danielson,
jury’s acquittal
To
son,
States
United
final
that he had indeed re-
determination
prohibi
held that
Fifth Amendment’s
transmission
placed the 1950 Studebaker
against
jeopardy encompasses
tion
double
parts.
agreed
circuit court
and dis-
estoppel.
the doctrine of collateral
397
charge.
missed
436,
1189,
443,
1194,
U.S.
25
Analysis and Decision
(1970). Generally,
L.Ed.2d 469
the doc
applies
trine
of fact
when an issue
or law
theft,
actually litigated
by
wheth- was
the issue before
determined
final and
money
judgment,
er he
owed
valid
determi
had taken
judgment.
performed
he
on nation was essential to the
employer
work
case,
analysis applies equally
has not
and we
our
to both
Because defendant
asserted
distinguish
have not discerned "a basis
provi-
the state
constitutional
and federal
protections
by
Deneui,
12,
¶
Dakota
99,
afforded
SD
sions.” See State v.
2009
provided
those
in the feder-
Constitution from
221,
omitted).
(citation
229
al
under the circumstances of
constitution
ap
in a criminal case
mer
possibility
may
Collateral
that it
have
“an
fact has
plies when
‘issue
ultimate
prevent'
been does not
relitigation
final
once been determined
a valid and
Haines,
that issue.” United States v.
Flittie,
judgment[.]’
(7th
318 N.W.2d
Cir.1973).3
F.2d
(S.D.1982)
(quoting
We
review de novo a cir
verdict of acquittal.” Id. prove that she had not obtained the Flittie, applied explained, this Court coins as she it but did have dictates of and stated that a establishing review- the burden of that she had this case jury could have decided tional containing the coins the letter taken Danielson deciding whether change machine ex- without mail. from the working on telling the truth about her defense part of planation ques- I would answer jury. Conse- transmission. by the weighed had to be way because of simply negative have been tion in the it cannot quently, told prosecutor was under the case. The she tried issue. While the coins had on how to base their decision obligation prove no box, credibility. The the mail still when Danielson’s they judged not come adduced, a con- could it created concludes that story majority her There and still found proof. flict with the Government’s have disbelieved conflicting explanations theft. This conclusion guilty him not but two were Thus, of evi- presentation to be considered. ignores the State’s possession her jury. The ‘necessarily’ pass argument had to to the dence and credibility hinged account. The of her challenge the truthfulness adjudicated, the truth about telling ‘crucial’ and once he was issue was on whether trial for another It difficult in a the transmission. is working redetermination its estopped. a rational would have imagine is how offense find- a not verdict without returned I Consequently, credible. ing Danielson analysis applies comparable A the circuit court’s dismissal would affirm prove not have to The State did here. indictment. the State’s work on the failed to transmission, prove have to but it did received parts
the checks agree- Rocket Lube. The side
belonged to part Dr. Cox was
ment with possession that he was lawful
defense weigh had to
the checks.
Consequently,
truthfulness of
defense.
fulness of Danielson’s MILLER, Milton E. Mitchell L. Cherie credibility concern- Neufeld, B. co-executors of and Helen performed the work for ing whether he of Elvin E. Mitchell the estate “crucial,” and the State Dr. Cox was Appel- Miller, Defendants Chris retry- collaterally estopped from should be lants. subsequent perju- in a ing that same issue No. 25252. ry trial. Dakota. Supreme Court of South correctly The circuit court ruled circuit court looked at in this case. The March 2010. Argued eye to in “a frame” with “an July Decided proceedings.” all the circumstances of the a ra- appeal is whether question