State v. Moeller
396 N.W.2d 320
S.D.
1986
Check Treatment

*1 320' Regulation, Vehicles, relied Dep -mereeand Johnston v. 't. Motor available,

proof namely, (1973). “abstract.” Neb. part The “abstract” was filed and made a It should be noted that the statutes of It was also “certi employ allowing record below. a scheme Nebraska re appellant’s fied.” Were we to follow the ports jurisdictions from other but sets extreme, advocacy logical any Wyo to a reports. forth the contents of those ming prior July conviction 1984 would be summation, although agree I with the simply in the invalid South case, cautiously approach result of this I Wyoming because the State of used a dif the introduction of evidence in the courts of system ferent than our state at the time law or before administrative that bodies question. many takes so it begets shortcuts a burden say, impressed by Needless to I am is, proof nature, by wispy which and appellant stipulated fact to his without firmament. Wyoming. DWI conviction the State of stipulation also included the

Said Butte

County stipulation, conviction. This cou- “abstract,”

pled justifies with the af-

firmance of the lower court’s decision be-

yond peradventure.

Finally, I am not enthralled with the by majority, decision as cited and Iowa Dakota, STATE South Plaintiff join majority therefore do not wish to Appellee, and opinion in its recitation of the Iowa authori- ty approval. language paints Iowa’s with too broad a brush. I would not Kyle MOELLER, Chris Defendant “any legal-appearing form” of notice of Appellant. document, conviction to suffice. The from No. 15072. state, whatever should bear an indicia of foreign legal state’s conviction. The Supreme Court of South Dakota. form should reflect that it comes from a Sept. on Briefs Considered 1986. indeed, foreign that, state and a conviction place for DWI took on a certain date in a Decided Nov. certain court and with the sentence. Be it judgment, plea “abstract” or finding guilt. recited be computer printouts

I fear will soon be in offing proof previous convic

tions. Notices of conviction should not computer printouts

emanate from and ad flurry. A circuit or an

ministrative body type

administrative should have some

of document which is reliable and bears an Pennsylvania,

air of officialdom. out,

majority opinion points has likewise approach reception

taken a fluid body

evidence in an administrative or a Nebraska,

court. Our sister state of how

ever, require reports of out-of- spec

state convictions be authenticated and

ified that it shall “in form for admis be

sion in the courts of this state.” *2 originated

commit crime the ac the cused the test, or with State. Under the entrapment exists if the evidence reveals predisposed the was accused not to commit the per crime but rather “an was innocent son lured committing into a crime.” Moel I, ler 388 quoting N.W.2d at State v. Nelsen, 89 S.D. 228 N.W.2d (1975). As we stated in Moeller I: “When conflicting origin evidence exists to the of charged, the intent to commit the crime question entrapment the is jury, for the and when is there substantial evidence jury may from which the infer that the originated criminal in intent the defend mind, entrapment ant’s aas matter of law is not established.” 388 N.W.2d at 874 (citation omitted). appeal, On we consider bearing the the entrapment evidence on light issue the most uphold favorable to ing I, the conviction. Moeller 388 N.W.2d 875; Johnson, at (S.D.1978). Upon reconsidering the ev idence, hold we still a firm belief that suffi conflicting cient was admitted as origin to the the to the intent commit Ledbetter, Atty. B. Clair Asst. Gen. charged question crime to make it a valid Pierre, plaintiff appellee; for Mark V. of for entrapment jury. the Gen., Meierhenry, Atty. Pierre, on brief. argues Moeller also this was case Grossenburg Day J.M. Grossen- & improperly jury submitted to the to Winner, burg, appellant. for defendant and peculiar objective considerations entrapment. the standard contrast to FOSHEIM, (on rehearing). subjective theory entrapment, objec the We earlier Moeller’s conviction affirmed theory tive not concentrate possession distribution and of cocaine. predisposition. “The objective defendant’s Moeller, (S.D. State v. 388 N.W.2d only test an inquiry police concerns into 1986) (Moeller I). trial, At Moeller’s conduct to if determine the actions of jury rejected entrapment defense. We reprehensible under cir police were so refer the reader to our earlier decision for cumstances, refuse, that the rehearing specific more facts. This was public a policy, as matter to a granted whether, on the limited issue of Johnson, conviction to stand.” 268 N.W.2d facts, given under the validity Moel- (citation omitted). argues at 615 Moeller entrapment ler’s properly defense was sub judge qualified a is to assess or jury mitted to whether it was a case police conduct that this was there matter of law to be decided trial improperly jury. fore submitted to the judge. adopt objective We have declined to notes, Nevertheless, As our earlier decision to at 616. Moel- standard. Id. validity entrapment urges determine of an ler us to reverse his conviction be- applies subjec alleged police impropriety leading defense South cause tive, origin arrest, contending may or of the intent That test his we so test. to do subjective rejecting seeks to establish the intent to out- without test J., Moeller, SABERS, having right. According this court did been a member this in we reversed Johnson wherein of the Court at the time this action was entrapment by holding Court, Johnson’s conviction originally submitted to the did not disagree. existed as a matter of law. We participate. expressly that we

We stated Johnson WUEST, Chief Justice subjective rejecting were not test objective, of the and that “our deci- favor *3 I dissent for all the reasons stated in the reprehensibility on the sion rest[ed] dissenting opinion in Moeller I. police, the actions of the but police, determination that the actions of the HERTZ, Acting not, reprehensible or constitute[d] entrapment as a matter of law.” Id. at I dissent for all of the reasons stated my dissenting opinion in Moeller I. conviction is affirmed.

The HENDERSON, JJ.,

MORGAN and con-

cur.

WUEST, C.J., HERTZ, Circuit Justice, acting

Judge, Supreme as a Court

dissent.