harmless error in South Dakota

2009See SDCL 23A-44AM (Rule 52(a)); see also Michalek, 407 N.W.2d at 819 (“The harmless error rule” does not require “the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”) (citing State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 130 (S.D.1982) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969))). [¶ 51.] Even if we were to assess the asserted errors in this case for

1998We apply the harmless error rule to constitutional violations, but only when “the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126,130 (S.D.1982); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969)); accord State v. Helmer, 1996 SD *844 31, ¶ 37, 545 N.W.2d 471, 477 ; State v. Larson, 512 N.W.2d 73

2009See SDCL 23A-44AM (Rule 52(a)); see also Michalek, 407 N.W.2d at 819 (“The harmless error rule” does not require “the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”) (citing State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 130 (S.D.1982) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969))). [¶ 51.] Even if we were to assess the asserted errors in this case for

2007“The harmless error rule governs ... provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987) (citations omitted). “ ‘[HJarmlessness must ... be determined on the basis of the remaining evidence.’ ” Frazier, 2001 SD 19 at ¶ 31 , 622 N.W.2d at 258 (quoting Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1021-1022 , 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2803 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857, 867 (1988)). [¶ 20.] In this case, the remaining evidence at Zakaria’s trial included footprints consistent with those of

2016“The harmless error rule governs even constitutional violations, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the [C]ourt is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Berget, 2013 S.D. 1, ¶ 114 , 826 N.W.2d 1, 36 (quoting State v. Younger, 453 N.W.2d 834, 838 (S.D.1990)). “[A]dmission of evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment is subject to harmless error' analysis.” Id. ¶ 115 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). [¶ 19.

2016“The harmless error rule governs even constitutional violations, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the [C]ourt is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Berget, 2013 S.D. 1, ¶ 114 , 826 N.W.2d 1, 36 (quoting State v. Younger, 453 N.W.2d 834, 838 (S.D.1990)). “[A]dmission of evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment is subject to harmless error' analysis.” Id. ¶ 115 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). [¶ 19.

2007See State v. Herrmann, 2004 SD 53, ¶ 23 , 679 N.W.2d 503, 510 (finding that any Sixth Amendment violation was harmless error); State v. Frazier, 2001 SD 19, ¶¶ 27-33 , 622 N.W.2d 246, 257-259 (finding that confrontation error in the admission of hearsay was not harmless). [¶ 19.] “The harmless error doctrine preserves the essential purpose of criminal trials: to decide a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

2007See State v. Herrmann, 2004 SD 53, ¶ 23 , 679 N.W.2d 503, 510 (finding that any Sixth Amendment violation was harmless error); State v. Frazier, 2001 SD 19, ¶¶ 27-33 , 622 N.W.2d 246, 257-259 (finding that confrontation error in the admission of hearsay was not harmless). [¶ 19.] “The harmless error doctrine preserves the essential purpose of criminal trials: to decide a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

2020Harmless error “depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.

2020Harmless error “depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.

2024While I agree that the presiding judge erred in considering judicial economy and in determining that the right to file an affidavit had been waived in this specific case, the error under SDCL 15-12-32 does not require reversal. [¶39.] The Court’s harmless error rule in civil cases is set forth in SDCL 15-6- 61, and provides in part, that “no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court . . . is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such

2024While I agree that the presiding judge erred in considering judicial economy and in determining that the right to file an affidavit had been waived in this specific case, the error under SDCL 15-12-32 does not require reversal. [¶39.] The Court’s harmless error rule in civil cases is set forth in SDCL 15-6- 61, and provides in part, that “no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court . . . is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such

2019“Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68-69 , 124 S. Ct. at 1374 (emphasis added). [¶44.] Nevertheless, and although the circuit court erred, I agree with the majority opinion that a violation of the Confrontation Clause is subject to the harmless error review.

2019“Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68-69 , 124 S. Ct. at 1374 (emphasis added). [¶44.] Nevertheless, and although the circuit court erred, I agree with the majority opinion that a violation of the Confrontation Clause is subject to the harmless error review.

2016“The harmless error rule governs even constitutional violations, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the [C]ourt is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Berget, 2013 S.D. 1, ¶ 114 , 826 N.W.2d 1, 36 (quoting State v. Younger, 453 N.W.2d 834, 838 (S.D.1990)). “[A]dmission of evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment is subject to harmless error' analysis.” Id. ¶ 115 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). [¶ 19.

2016“The harmless error rule governs even constitutional violations, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the [C]ourt is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Berget, 2013 S.D. 1, ¶ 114 , 826 N.W.2d 1, 36 (quoting State v. Younger, 453 N.W.2d 834, 838 (S.D.1990)). “[A]dmission of evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment is subject to harmless error' analysis.” Id. ¶ 115 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). [¶ 19.

2007“The harmless error rule governs ... provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987) (citations omitted). “ ‘[HJarmlessness must ... be determined on the basis of the remaining evidence.’ ” Frazier, 2001 SD 19 at ¶ 31 , 622 N.W.2d at 258 (quoting Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1021-1022 , 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2803 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857, 867 (1988)). [¶ 20.] In this case, the remaining evidence at Zakaria’s trial included footprints consistent with those of

2007“The harmless error rule governs ... provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987) (citations omitted). “ ‘[HJarmlessness must ... be determined on the basis of the remaining evidence.’ ” Frazier, 2001 SD 19 at ¶ 31 , 622 N.W.2d at 258 (quoting Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1021-1022 , 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2803 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857, 867 (1988)). [¶ 20.] In this case, the remaining evidence at Zakaria’s trial included footprints consistent with those of

1998"We apply the harmless error rule to constitutional violations, but only when ‘the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Application of Novaock, 1998 SD 3, ¶ 10 , 572 N.W.2d 840, 843 (emphasis original) (quoting State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987).

1998"We apply the harmless error rule to constitutional violations, but only when ‘the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Application of Novaock, 1998 SD 3, ¶ 10 , 572 N.W.2d 840, 843 (emphasis original) (quoting State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987).

1998See also State v. Jaques, 428 N.W.2d 260, 266 (S.D.1988) (possible constitutional error deemed harmless because of “overwhelming weight of evidence" depicting defendant's guilt).

1998See also State v. Jaques, 428 N.W.2d 260, 266 (S.D.1988) (possible constitutional error deemed harmless because of "overwhelming weight of evidence" depicting defendant's guilt).

1987In concurring with this opinion, to protect the integrity of my position on the harmless error rule in South Dakota, I make reference to my special writings in State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 505 (S.D. 1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); State v. Remacle, 386 N.W.2d 38, 41 (S.D. 1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); and State v. Davis, 401 N.W.2d 721, 726 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., concurring in result).

1987In concurring with this opinion, to protect the integrity of my position on the harmless error rule in South Dakota, I make reference to my special writings in State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 505 (S.D.1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); State v. Remacle, 386 N.W.2d 38, 41 (S.D. 1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); and State v. Davis, 401 N.W.2d 721, 726 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., concurring in result).

2009See SDCL 23A-44AM (Rule 52(a)); see also Michalek, 407 N.W.2d at 819 (“The harmless error rule” does not require “the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”) (citing State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 130 (S.D.1982) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969))). [¶ 51.] Even if we were to assess the asserted errors in this case for

2009See SDCL 23A-44AM (Rule 52(a)); see also Michalek, 407 N.W.2d at 819 (“The harmless error rule” does not require “the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”) (citing State v. Heumiller, 317 N.W.2d 126, 130 (S.D.1982) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969))). [¶ 51.] Even if we were to assess the asserted errors in this case for

1991As we have acknowledged before, "the harmless error rule ought never be used to justify unfairness at trial." State v. Webb, 251 N.W.2d 687 (S.D.1977).

1991As we have acknowledged before, “the harmless error rule ought never be used to justify unfairness at trial.” State v. Webb, 251 N.W.2d 687 (S.D.1977).

2016“The harmless error rule governs even constitutional violations, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, provided the [C]ourt is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” State v. Berget, 2013 S.D. 1, ¶ 114 , 826 N.W.2d 1, 36 (quoting State v. Younger, 453 N.W.2d 834, 838 (S.D.1990)). “[A]dmission of evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment is subject to harmless error' analysis.” Id. ¶ 115 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1838 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). [¶ 19.

2013The harmless error rule “promotes the public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.” State v. Zakaria, 2007 S.D. 27 , ¶ 19, 730 N.W.2d 140, 146 (citations omitted). [¶ 115.] This is the standard utilized by the United States Supreme Court in determining whether Estelle error requires reversal.

1990I concur in the majority opinion, except as to the harmless error standard enunciated therein, i.e., “the court is able to declare a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless and did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” I believe the standard expressed in my writing in State v. Davis, 401 N.W.2d 721 (S.D.1987) is the better rule.

1990I write in the present case, however, because I believe that even if the April 2 statement was involuntary and inadmissible (a conclusion with which I do not agree), the admission of this statement was harmless error either under the harmless error rule set forth in State v. Davis, 401 N.W.2d 721 (S.D.1987) or State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 819 (S.D.1987).

1987In concurring with this opinion, to protect the integrity of my position on the harmless error rule in South Dakota, I make reference to my special writings in State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 505 (S.D. 1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); State v. Remacle, 386 N.W.2d 38, 41 (S.D. 1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); and State v. Davis, 401 N.W.2d 721, 726 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., concurring in result).

1987In concurring with this opinion, to protect the integrity of my position on the harmless error rule in South Dakota, I make reference to my special writings in State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493, 505 (S.D.1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); State v. Remacle, 386 N.W.2d 38, 41 (S.D. 1986) (Henderson, J., specially concurring); and State v. Davis, 401 N.W.2d 721, 726 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., concurring in result).

2026Cf. Megaro v. McCollum, 66 F.4th 151, 160 (4th Cir. 2023) (collateral estoppel bars litigation of claims where four factors are met, including that “the issues were material and relevant to the disposition (continued . . .) -14- #30969 Prejudice [¶36.] We have recognized that the circuit court’s error in the application of collateral estoppel “is subject to the harmless-error rule.” Mendenhall, 2017 S.D. 2, ¶ 13 , 889 N.W.2d at 420–21 (court’s erroneous treatment of facts as conclusively established analyzed for harmless error) (citing SDCL 15-6-61).

2022Power Dist. decision, we stated that the “[u]se of the wrong standard of review is not merely harmless error[,]” 354 N.W.2d at 718 , but we, nevertheless, considered the PUC’s harmless error argument and applied the correct standard of review.

2022See id. at 719 . -13- #29615 determined not to threaten the social and economic condition of inhabitants or expected inhabitants in the siting area; (3) The facility will not substantially impair the health, safety or welfare of the inhabitants; and (4) The facility will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration having been given the views of governing bodies of affected local units of government.

2009See State v. Davi, 504 N.W.2d 844, 857 (S.D.1993) (citing McDowell v. Solem, 447 N.W.2d 646, 651 (S.D.1989)). [¶ 52.] Affirmed. [¶ 53.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, MEIERHENRY, Justice, SABERS, Retired Justice and TIMM, Circuit Judge, concur. [¶ 54.] TIMM, Circuit Judge, sitting for ZINTER, Justice, disqualified. 1 .