Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

374 N.W.2d 617

State v. Reutter

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1985

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1985-09-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Phyle, State v. Smithers

Relies on 141 Cal. App. 3d 224 - People v. Cooks · State v. Doss · State v. Walsh

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-09-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Rhines (1996), State v. Miller (1988)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions

1801985199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice

¶1(concurring in result).

¶2I concur with the majority opinion on Issues I., II., IV., V., and VI., and with the result on Issue III. The testimony of accomplices Trygstad and Cole was sufficiently corroborated. However, the role of the jury under SDCL 23A-22-8 is overstated and could send a misleading signal to the trial courts.

¶3Under SDCL 23A-22-8, a defendant may not be convicted by the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by evidence which does more than show the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof. The degree of evidence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice is an ultimate question of fact for the jury. See, e.g., State v. Erickson, 315 N.W.2d 332, 335 (S.D.1982) and State v. Walsh, 25 S.D. 30, 125 N.W. 295 (1910). The trial judge, however, must first determine as a matter of law that competent corroborated evidence is present before the issue can be presented to the jury. The jury then determines the weight thereof. See, e.g., State v. Doss, 355 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 1984). See also People v. Cooks, 190 Cal.Rptr. 211, 141 Cal.App.2d 224 (Cal.Ct.App.1983), People v. Jones, 76 A.D.2d 1007, 429 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y.App.Div.1980). The initial role of the trial judge is necessary before the function of the jury is activated. The language of the majority opinion indicates that the entire procedure is the exclusive prerogative of the jury. ■

/374/nw2d/617 · .json · Public domain