State v. Mattson, 2005 SD 71

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed Henry L. Mattson III's conviction for possession of methamphetamine. The court held that evidence of Mattson's prior methamphetamine use was admissible for purposes including knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake, and that the canine sniff did not impermissibly extend the traffic stop. The opinion also addresses the admission of evidence concerning Mattson's refusal to provide a urine sample after arrest.

Holdings

1. Other-acts evidence of Mattson's prior methamphetamine use and positive urinalysis was admissible for the noncharacter purposes of proving knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake because those matters were material to the knowing-possession charge and the evidence's probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
2. The drug-dog sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the vehicle was lawfully stopped for a speeding violation, the sniff occurred before the traffic stop was completed, and the brief exterior sniff did not impermissibly extend the stop.
3. A defendant's refusal to submit to a lawfully requested urinalysis in a drug-possession case is non-testimonial conduct, is not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and may be admitted at trial even without a warning that the refusal could be used as evidence.
4. The jury instruction stating that Mattson's refusal could be considered, but was not by itself sufficient to establish guilt, was a full and correct statement of the law and was not shown to be prejudicial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Mattson's prior methamphetamine use and prior positive urinalysis to prove knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake.
2. Whether the Fourth Amendment was violated when an offsite canine unit arrived during a valid traffic stop and initiated a drug-dog sniff before the traffic stop was completed.
3. Whether the Fifth Amendment barred admission of Mattson's refusal to provide a urine sample after his arrest for possession of a controlled substance.
4. Whether the jury instruction concerning Mattson's refusal to submit to urinalysis was a correct and nonprejudicial statement of law.

Disposition

affirmed