State v. Condon

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed Karyl Michelle Condon’s conviction for grand theft and the denial of her motion for a new trial. The court held that the trial court properly noted witnesses’ in-court identifications, allowed lay testimony concerning the defendant’s and witnesses’ perceived ethnicity, and excluded an unsworn handwritten statement under the residual hearsay exception. The court also applied abuse-of-discretion and related standards in reviewing the evidentiary rulings and new-trial decision.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not err by noting the in-court identifications because the notation merely preserved facts occurring at trial for appellate review and did not constitute judicial notice, testimony by the judge, or improper bolstering of the witnesses.
2. The questioning about Condon's nationality and the witness's ability to distinguish American Indians from persons of Mexican descent did not violate due process and was admissible lay testimony relevant to identification.
3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the unavailable inmate's unsworn handwritten statement because it lacked equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.
4. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Condon's motion for a new trial because the proffered evidence was not sufficiently credible and would not probably have resulted in an acquittal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by noting for the record the witnesses' in-court identifications of Condon.
2. Whether allowing testimony concerning Condon's nationality and the witness's ability to distinguish American Indians from persons of Mexican descent violated Condon's constitutional rights or constituted inadmissible or prejudicial evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit an unavailable inmate's unsworn handwritten statement under the residual hearsay exception.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Condon's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under SDCL 15-6-59(a)(4).

Disposition

affirmed