State of South Dakota v. Christopher Jones

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that third-degree rape under SDCL 22-22-1(4) requires the State to prove that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim's intoxication rendered her incapable of consenting. The court concluded that the statute did not impose strict liability and reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed. Two justices dissented, reasoning that the statute's plain language and legislative history did not require proof of the defendant's knowledge.

Holdings

1. A conviction for rape under SDCL 22-22-1(4) requires proof that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim's intoxicated condition rendered her incapable of consenting.
2. The circuit court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that the State had to prove Jones knew or reasonably should have known that the victim's intoxication rendered her incapable of consenting.
3. The court declined to address Jones's motion-for-judgment-of-acquittal issue because its resolution of the jury-instruction issue required reversal and remand for a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether SDCL 22-22-1(4) requires the State to prove that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim's intoxicated condition rendered her incapable of consenting.
2. Whether the circuit court reversibly erred by refusing Jones's requested jury instruction on that knowledge element.
3. Whether Jones was entitled to judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded