State v. Asmussen

#23477, #23478-a-DG

2006 SD 37

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID ASMUSSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

* * * *

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CODINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

HONORABLE ROBERT L. TIMM
Judge

* * * *

LAWRENCE E. LONG
Attorney General

CRAIG M. EICHSTADT
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.

MICHAEL B. THOMPSON
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorney for defendant
and appellant.

* * * *

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON FEBRUARY 13, 2006

OPINION FILED 04/12/06
#23477, #23478

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice

[¶1.] David J. Asmussen (Asmussen), appeals from a conviction for stalking.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶2.] Asmussen and Pamela Dunn (Dunn), were involved in a long-term

romantic relationship that ended sometime in August 2000. On August 25, 2000, in

Codington County, South Dakota, circuit court, a protection order against further

domestic abuse was issued against Asmussen as provided under SDCL Chapter 25-

10. The protection order prohibited Asmussen from “contact[ing], directly or

indirectly, in any manner” Dunn, her daughter, Dunn’s mother, any other member

of Dunn’s family, Dunn’s employer or her co-workers. The protection order was in

effect until August 25, 2003. It also prohibited Asmussen from coming within 100

feet of any vehicle owned by Dunn. The protection order was served on Asmussen,

and stated at the top of the first page: “VIOLATION OF THIS PROTECTION

ORDER IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.”

[¶3.] On December 9, 2001, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Dunn’s daughter,

Stacey Benson, telephoned Dunn asking if she had a telephone number for an

acquaintance. Dunn replied that she did not, but that Asmussen would know it.

Dunn then had a conversation with Asmussen in the background. Dunn explained

to Benson that Asmussen was retrieving the last of his personal possessions from

Dunn’s home. At approximately 11:00 p.m. that same evening, Dunn telephoned

her mother, Loretta Hallquist, and stated she had received a telephone call from

Asmussen in which he sounded upset and possibly like he was crying.

-1-
#23477, #23478

[¶4.] Dunn was scheduled to work on December 10, 2001. However, she

never arrived at her place of employment, nor has she ever been heard from since

her last contact with her mother on December 9, 2001. An investigation was begun

into her disappearance by the Watertown, South Dakota, police department.

[¶5.] In the course of the investigation concerning Dunn’s disappearance,

Asmussen admitted being at Dunn’s residence and to speaking with her by

telephone on December 8 and 9, 2001. Telephone records revealed that Asmussen

had initiated seventeen calls to Dunn’s home telephone between the dates of

November 25, 2001, and December 9, 2001, all in violation of the protection order.

Three threatening and abusive messages left by a male who did not identify himself

were recovered from Dunn’s digital voice messaging system, which indicated that

the messages had been listened to and saved prior to Dunn’s disappearance.

[¶6.] As a result of the violation of the protection order, Asmussen was

charged with three counts of stalking. The first count was charged under SDCL 22-

19A-1, SDCL 22-19A-2 1 and 22-6-1(8), and was based on the alleged violation of the

protection order. The second count of stalking was charged under SDCL 22-19A-

1. SDCL 22-19A-2 provides: “Any person who violates § 22-19A-1 when there is
a temporary restraining order, or an injunction, or a protection order, in
effect prohibiting the behavior described in § 22-19A-1 against the same
party, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.”

A Class 6 felony can result in a maximum of “two years imprisonment in the
state penitentiary or a fine of two thousand dollars, or both.” SDCL 22-6-
1(8).

-2-
#23477, #23478

1(3) and 22-6-2(1). 2 The third count was charged under SDCL 22-19A-1(2) and 22-

6-2(1), but was eventually merged with the first count. A Part II habitual offender

information was also filed, alleging Asmussen had prior felony convictions for

odometer rollback, conspiracy to commit odometer rollback, and mail fraud in

United States District Court, District of South Dakota. The matter was scheduled

for a jury trial.

[¶7.] On August 20, 2004, at a motions hearing, Asmussen addressed the

court and indicated his desire to discharge his attorneys and represent himself at

trial. The circuit court informed Asmussen of the perils of self-representation, and

Asmussen maintained he still wanted to represent himself. After his attorneys

were permitted to withdraw, Asmussen launched into irrelevant statements

concerning the Uniform Commercial Code and requested that papers concerning the

statements be filed with the circuit court.

[¶8.] On August 23, 2004, a jury trial was held in Huron, South Dakota. At

trial, portions of the telephone messages left on Dunn’s digital answering service on

December 5 and 6, 2001, by a caller identified by the State as Asmussen were

played for the jury. A videotape of Asmussen’s interview with police was also

admitted at trial and played for the jury, in which he admitted to knowing that the

protection order had been issued against him. Jon Bierne, an Agent with the

2. The second count was dismissed on a motion to the circuit court, which held
that SDCL 22-19A-1 was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face in violation
of the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. State
v. Asmussen, 2003 SD 102, ¶1, 668 NW2d 725, 728. On intermediate appeal
to this Court, we reversed the circuit court on both issues. Id. ¶¶9, 18.

-3-
#23477, #23478

Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), testified at trial that in his opinion the

voice on the telephone messages was that of Asmussen.

[¶9.] Asmussen made no opening statement at trial and did not object to any

of the State’s evidence at trial. Asmussen also failed to participate in any in-

chambers discussions, refused to propose jury instructions, made no objections to

the State’s proposed jury instructions, and declined to give a closing argument. The

following jury instruction was used at trial on Count 1 under SDCL 22-19A-2:

The elements of the crime of stalking in violation of a protection
order, each of which the state must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt, are that at the time and place alleged:
1. A protection order was in effect prohibiting the
defendant from willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly
harassing Pamela Dunn by means of any verbal,
electronic, digital media, mechanical, telegraphic, or
written communication;
2. The defendant had knowledge of the order; and
3. The defendant violated the order.

[¶10.] Asmussen was found guilty on the two counts of stalking. The circuit

court sentenced him to forty months in the state penitentiary with credit for time

served, and assessed attorneys’ fees and costs. Asmussen was advised of his right

to appeal the conviction, and timely filed a pro se notice of appeal. The circuit court

appointed appellate counsel, who also timely filed a notice of appeal. This Court

entered an order consolidating the appeals upon a motion by appellate counsel.

Asmussen filed a letter with the Court asking for his appellate counsel to withdraw,

which was remanded to circuit court for proceedings. The circuit court denied the

motion after a hearing on the matter. Asmussen raises three issues for this Court’s

review:

-4-
#23477, #23478

1. Whether Asmussen’s conviction under SDCL 22-19A-2
violated his right to Due Process when the protection
order issued under SDCL Chapter 25-10 failed to give
notice that conduct in violation of the order would subject
Asmussen to the penalties for a Class 6 felony under
SDCL 22-19A-2.

2. Whether the circuit court adequately advised Asmussen
of the perils of self-representation such that his
constitutional rights to counsel were not infringed.

3. Whether the circuit court erred when it allowed a law
enforcement officer to offer his opinion in court that the
voice on the messages left for Dunn was Asmussen’s.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶11.] Appeals asserting an infringement of a constitutional right are

reviewed under the de novo standard of review. State v. Dillon, 2001 SD 97, ¶12,

632 NW2d 37, 43 (citing State v. Stanga, 2000 SD 129, ¶8, 617 NW2d 486, 488). A

direct appeal from a conviction must be afforded greater scrutiny than a collateral

challenge by habeas corpus action. State v. Moeller, 511 NW2d 803, 809 (SD 1994).

Thus, on a direct appeal from a conviction the defendant is entitled to all

presumptions and protections possible under our constitution. Id.

[¶12.] We also employ the de novo standard of review for issues of statutory

construction. State v. Myrl & Roy’s Paving, Inc., 2004 SD 98, ¶6, 686 NW2d 651,

653 (citing Zoss v. Schaefers, 1999 SD 105, ¶6, 598 NW2d 550, 552 (citing Satellite

Cable Srvs. v. Northern Electric, 1998 SD 67, ¶5, 581 NW2d 478, 480)). “Statutory

construction is used to discover the true intention of the law which is ascertained

primarily from the language expressed in the statute.” Id. (quoting Martinmaas v.

Engelmann, 2000 SD 85, ¶49, 612 NW2d 600, 611). We give words their plain

-5-
#23477, #23478

meaning and effect and read statutes as a whole, as well as enactments relating to

the same subject. Id. ¶6, 686 NW2d at 654.

[¶13.] The trial court’s evidentiary rulings are presumed correct and will not

be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Perovich, 2001 SD 96, ¶11,

632 NW2d 12, 15 (citing State v. Goodroad, 1997 SD 46, ¶9, 563 NW2d 126, 129).

“An abuse of discretion refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not

justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence.” State v. Henry, 1996 SD 108,

¶10, 554 NW2d 472, 473 (quoting In re A.R.P., 519 NW2d 56, 62 (SD 1994) (quoting

State v. Moriarty, 501 NW2d 352, 355 (SD 1993); State v. Devall, 489 NW2d 371,

374 (SD 1992))). “In applying the abuse of discretion standard, ‘we do not

determine whether we would have made a like decision, only whether a judicial

mind, considering the law and the facts, could have reached a similar decision.’”

State v. Wilkins, 536 NW2d 97, 99 (SD 1995) (citing State v. Almond, 511 NW2d

572, 574 (SD 1994) (citing State v. Pfaff, 456 NW2d 558, 560-61 (SD 1990); State v.

Bartlett, 411 NW2d 411, 414 (SD 1987); Peterson v. Peterson, 434 NW2d 732 (SD

1989))). With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial

court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses

questionable evidence. State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61, ¶30, 627 NW2d 401, 415

(citing Koon v. United States, 518 US 81, 100, 116 SCt 2035, 2047, 135 LEd2d 392

(1996)).

-6-
#23477, #23478

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[¶14.] 1. Whether Asmussen’s conviction under SDCL 22-
19A-2 violated his right to Due Process when the
protection order issued under SDCL Chapter 25-10
failed to give notice that conduct in violation of the
order would subject Asmussen to the penalties for a
Class 6 felony under SDCL 22-19A-2.

[¶15.] Asmussen argues that his Due Process rights were violated as the

protection order issued against him under SDCL Chapter 25-10 did not give notice

that a violation of the order could subject him to penalties under SDCL 22-19A-2 for

a Class 6 felony. Asmussen argues that in order to safeguard an individual’s due

process rights, a person must be advised of the consequences of his or her failure to

abide by an order of protection. In the instant case, Asmussen contends the

protection order had to state with specificity that it could be violated and result in a

conviction for a Class 6 felony if Asmussen engaged in conduct that met the

definition of stalking under SDCL 22-19A-1(3). Asmussen also argues that SDCL

22-19A-1 is applicable only to protection orders issued pursuant to SDCL Chapter

22-19A.

[¶16.] SDCL 22-19A-2 provides: “Any person who violates § 22-19A-1 when

there is a temporary restraining order, or an injunction, or a protection order, in

effect prohibiting the behavior described in § 22-19A-1 against the same party, is

guilty of a Class 6 felony.” The specific behavior proscribed in SDCL 22-19A-1 is:

Any person:
(1) Who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or
harasses another person;
(2) Who makes a credible threat to another person with the
intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or
great bodily injury; or

-7-
#23477, #23478

(3) Who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harasses
another person by means of any verbal, electronic, digital
media, mechanical, telegraphic, or written
communication; is guilty of the crime of stalking.
Stalking is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

[¶17.] Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,

and article VI, section 2 of the South Dakota Constitution, no person shall be

deprived “of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law.” Due process in

the context of a criminal statute requires application of the standard as set forth in

State v. Bad Heart Bull:

A crime must be statutorily defined with definiteness and
certainty. A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of
an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application
violates the first essential of due process. Bouie v. City of
Columbia, 378 US 347, 84 SCt 1695, 12 LEd2d 894 [(1964)]. A
criminal statute must give a person of ordinary intelligence fair
notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. United
States v. Harriss, 347 US 612, 74 SCt 808, 98 LEd 989 [(1954);]
State v. Bullis, 231 NW2d 851 (SD 1975)).

257 NW2d 715, 720 (SD 1977). However, notice in the context of due process and

criminal statutes does not require “an explicit or personalized warning.” United

States v. Arcadipane, 41 F3d 1, 5 (1stCir 1994). This is because the law is definite

and knowable, and under our system of criminal law every person is presumed to

know the law. Cheek v. United States, 498 US 192, 199, 111 SCt 604, 609, 112

LEd2d 617 (1991) (noting that the common-law rule that “presumed every person

knew the law,” has been applied numerous times to cases construing criminal

statutes by the United States Supreme Court) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418

US 87, 119-124, 94 SCt 2887, 2909-2911, 41 LEd2d 590 (1974); United States v.

-8-
#23477, #23478

International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 US 558, 91 SCt 1697, 29 LEd2d 178

(1971); Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 US 337, 72 SCt 329, 96 LEd

367 (1952)).

[¶18.] Furthermore, this Court has long recognized that “when an action

violates two criminal statutes, the government may prosecute under either,

providing it does not discriminate against any class of defendants.” State v. Big

Head, 363 NW2d 556, 561 (SD 1985) (citing State v. Secrest, 331 NW2d 580, 583-84

(SD 1983)). As the United States Supreme Court noted in United States v.

Batchelder:

The provisions in issue here, however, unambiguously specify
the activity proscribed and the penalties available upon
conviction. See supra, at 2201-2202. That this particular
conduct may violate both Titles does not detract from the notice
afforded by each. Although the statutes create uncertainty as to
which crime may be charged and therefore what penalties may
be imposed, they do so to no greater extent than would a single
statute authorizing various alternative punishments. So long as
overlapping criminal provisions clearly define the conduct
prohibited and the punishment authorized, the notice
requirements of the Due Process Clause are satisfied.

442 US 114, 123, 99 SCt 2198, 2204, 60 LEd2d 755 (1979).

[¶19.] In the instant case, Asmussen was given notice by the language

contained in the protection order that it was a criminal offense to violate the order

by contacting Dunn in any manner. The conduct that Asmussen was notified would

constitute a violation of the protection order and a criminal offense included: “The

Respondent shall be restrained from committing any acts resulting in physical

harm, bodily injury or attempting to cause physical harm or bodily injury, or from

inflicting fear of imminent physical harm of bodily injury against family or

-9-
#23477, #23478

household members.” In addition, the order stated “Respondent shall not contact,

directly or indirectly, in any manner: petitioner, Stacey Benson, any other member

of petitioner’s family, petitioner’s mother, or petitioner’s employer, or petitioner’s

co-employees.” (emphasis added). The protection order was clear on its face that

any and all contact by Asmussen was a violation of the order and a criminal offense.

[¶20.] Violation of a protection order issued under SDCL Chapter 25-10 can

warrant misdemeanor or felony charges depending on the circumstances involved. 3

In addition, the statute indicates that “[a]ny proceeding under this chapter is in

addition to other civil or criminal remedies.” SDCL 25-10-13.

[¶21.] SDCL 22-19A-2 provides an additional criminal remedy for violation of

a protection order when the conduct involved in violating the order meets the

elements of stalking. The language employed in SDCL 22-19A-1 gives fair notice of

the stalking conduct that is forbidden when a protective order is in place. SDCL

22-19A-2 gives fair notice that engaging in the conduct described in SDCL 22-19A-1

while a protection order is in place results in a Class 6 felony.

3. SDCL 25-10-13 provides:

Violation of order as misdemeanor or felony. If a temporary protection order
or a protection order is granted pursuant to this chapter, and the respondent
or person to be restrained knows of the order, violation of the order is a Class
1 misdemeanor. If any violation of this section constitutes an assault
pursuant to § 22-18-1.1, the violation is a Class 6 felony. If a respondent or
person to be restrained has been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty to,
two or more violations of this section, the factual basis for which occurred
after the date of the second conviction, and occurred within five years of
committing the current offense, the respondent or person to be restrained is
guilty of a Class 6 felony for any third or subsequent offense. Any proceeding
under this chapter is in addition to other civil or criminal remedies.

-10-
#23477, #23478

[¶22.] Furthermore, the language of SDCL 22-19A-2 does not limit its

application to protection orders issued pursuant to SDCL Chapter 22-19A. The

language used in the statute indicates only that “a protection order” has to be in

place. The statutes are sufficient to give notice to any “person of ordinary

intelligence,” that violation of any protection order by conduct that meets the

definition of stalking in SDCL 22-19A-1 can be charged and prosecuted as a Class 6

felony per SDCL 22-19A-2.

[¶23.] The State presented evidence at trial that Asmussen repeatedly

contacted Dunn by telephone over a twelve hour time period on December 5 and 6,

2001. Twenty-six calls were placed from a cellular telephone owned by Asmussen’s

father and to which Asmussen had access. The State also presented evidence that

Asmussen left at least three voice mail messages on Dunn’s digital answering

service that contained foul language, berated her for lying to Asmussen, threatened

he was writing a letter to Dunn’s father, and threatened that there would be “some

bad consequences” if she lied to him about who she had been with the evening of

December 5, 2001. Finally, testimony from a co-worker concerning a telephone call

Dunn received on December 6, 2001, while at work supported the State’s position

that Asmussen’s course of conduct had the effect of harassing Dunn. The co-worker

testified that Dunn was visibly upset, shaking and crying after receiving the

telephone call and was in fear of what Asmussen would do after finding out she had

begun seeing another man.

[¶24.] It is clear from the facts of the case that Asmussen was on notice by

his acknowledged receipt of the protection order that he was forbidden to contact

Dunn
-11-
#23477, #23478

in any manner. Yet, despite the prohibition, Asmussen repeatedly contacted Dunn

by telephone and berated and threatened her for dating another man. The course of

conduct Asmussen engaged in violated the protection order and met the definition

of stalking as provided in SDCL 22-19A-1(3).

[¶25.] Finally, Asmussen argues that during the settlement of instructions

the State’s Attorney argued that the State was required to prove only that

Asmussen violated an effective protection order by contacting Dunn and not that

the effective protection order had to textually forbid the specific conduct proscribed

in SDCL 22-19A-1(3). Asmussen argues that the circuit court overruled the State’s

Attorney and ruled that the protection order had to textually forbid the specific

conduct in SDCL 22-19A-1(3).

[¶26.] This is a mischaracterization of the State’s Attorney’s position and the

circuit court’s ruling. The State’s Attorney argued that the protection order did not

need to prohibit the conduct as listed in SDCL 22-19A-1(3). The circuit court

overruled his objection to the inclusion of the language “prohibiting the defendant

from willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassing Pamela Dunn by means of any

verbal, electronic, digital media, mechanical, telegraphic, or written

communication” in the jury instructions. The circuit court explained that the State

had to prove that the protection order prohibited Asmussen from engaging in

stalking behavior as defined in SDCL 22-19A-1. However, the circuit court did not

rule that the protection order had to use the same language as SDCL 22-19A-1(3) as

asserted by Asmussen. Instead, the circuit court ruled that the State’s Attorney

had to show that Asmussen was forbidden by the protection order from engaging in

-12-
#23477, #23478

the conduct prohibited in SDCL 22-19A-1(3), that is harassing by means of willful,

repeated and maliciously contacting the victim “by means of any verbal, electronic,

digital media, mechanical, telegraphic, or written communication[.]”

[¶27.] The State’s Attorney presented evidence at trial to show Asmussen

had engaged in a course of conduct whereby he willfully, repeatedly, and

maliciously contacted Dunn by telephone over the course of twelve hours on

December 5 and 6, 2001. The circuit court did not err when it permitted the issue

to go to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence in the record to show that the

repeated and threatening telephone calls violated the “no contact” protection order.

[¶28.] 2. Whether the circuit court adequately advised
Asmussen of the perils of self-representation such
that his constitutional right to counsel was not
infringed.

[¶29.] Asmussen argues on appeal that the circuit court erred when it

granted his motion to represent himself at trial, as the waiver was not knowingly

and voluntarily made. Asmussen contends the trial court failed to carefully review

each required advisements one by one and obtain his answer before proceeding to

the next advisement. Asmussen argues the waiver was constitutionally deficient

because the circuit court “rattled off the advisements and then at the very end

asked [Asmussen] if he understood.” Asmussen also argues the circuit court erred

when it did not order a competency evaluation after it granted the motion and

Asmussen made completely irrelevant remarks concerning the Uniform Commercial

Code and refused to respond to the circuit court’s questions.

[¶30.] A defendant in a criminal proceeding has the constitutional right to

represent himself and a constitutional right to representation by counsel. State v.

-13-
#23477, #23478

Van Sickle, 411 NW2d 665, 666 (SD 1987) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 US 806,

95 SCt 2525, 45 LEd2d 562 (1975)); State v. Thomlinson, 78 SD 235, 100 NW2d 121

(1960) (citing SD Const. art VI, §2)). In order for a defendant to exercise the right

to self-representation and waive the right to representation by counsel, a voluntary,

knowing and intelligent waiver must be made by the defendant. Id. (citing Faretta,

422 US 806, 95 SCt 2525, 45 LEd2d 562). We have previously stated that the

preferred method of determining whether a waiver is voluntary, knowing and

intelligent, is for the circuit court to review the five Van Sickle factors with the

defendant. State v. Raymond, 1997 SD 59, ¶12, 563 NW2d 823, 826 (citing Van

Sickle, 411 NW2d at 666-67 (quoting R. LaFave, Criminal Procedure §11.5 (1984))).

[¶31.] However, a waiver may be constitutionally acceptable when the circuit

court fails to issue the Van Sickle warnings. Id. ¶14 (citing Van Sickle, 411 NW2d

at 667). As long as there are circumstances present that indicate the circuit court

was able to ascertain that the defendant was fully aware of the dangers of self-

representation, a waiver will be constitutionally acceptable. Id. “The

determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel

must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances

surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the

accused.” Van Sickle, 411 NW2d at 666 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458, 58

SCt 1019, 82 LEd 1461 (1938)). As the Supreme Court stated in Faretta:

Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and
experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to
choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the
dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the
record will establish that “he knows what he is doing and his
choice is made with eyes open.” Adams v. United States ex rel.

-14-
#23477, #23478

McCann, 317 US [269,] 279, 63 SCt [236,] 242[, 87 LEd 268
(1942)].

422 US at 835, 95 SCt at 2541, 45 LEd2d 562.

[¶32.] The level of competency necessary for a valid waiver of the right to

counsel is the same as the level of competency to stand trial. Raymond, 1997 SD

59, ¶17, 563 NW2d at 827. The defendant must have “‘sufficient present ability to

consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding’ and

have a ‘rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’”

Id. (quoting Godinez v. Moran, 509 US 389, 396, 113 SCt 2680, 2685, 125 LEd2d

321 (1993)). “The competence that is required of a defendant seeking to waive his

right to counsel is the competence to waive the right, not the competence to

represent himself.” Id. (quoting Godinez, 509 US at 399, 113 SCt at 2687, 125

LEd2d 321). We will not overturn a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver on

appeal for constitutional deficiency merely because the defendant demonstrates a

lack of legal skill and experience and as a consequence employs poor trial strategy.

See Id. ¶14, 563 NW2d at 826.

[¶33.] In the instant case, the record is clear that the circuit court reviewed

the five Van Sickle factors with Asmussen at the motions hearing on August 20,

2001. It is also clear that the circuit court did not pause between each of the five

factors and ask Asmussen to indicate his understanding. However, the record

shows that the circuit court explained in detail the perils of self-representation.

The circuit court warned Asmussen several times of the disadvantages of

attempting to represent himself without legal training. Asmussen was then asked

if he understood the pitfalls of self-representation, to which Asmussen replied “yes.”

-15-
#23477, #23478

The circuit court then asked, “[a]nd you are willing to go forward even though you

may be at a disadvantage,” to which Asmussen again replied “yes.” The circuit

court asked if Asmussen had discussed his decision with his attorney, to which

Asmussen replied “yes.” Finally, the circuit court asked: “This case has gone on for

a long period of time, you understand the charges against you, you’ve represented

that to me, and you’ve been through a jury trial before?” Asmussen responded in

the affirmative once again.

[¶34.] Asmussen’s waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently. His trial strategy of quoting the Uniform Commercial

Code and insisting that the trial had to proceed under the rules of common law is

more appropriately characterized as evidence of lack of legal training. Asmussen’s

choice of legal strategy was irrelevant to the charges he faced, but is not an

indicator of lack of mental competency to waive his right to counsel given the facts

of this case.

[¶35.] 3. Whether the circuit court erred when it allowed a
law enforcement officer to offer his opinion in
court that the voice on the messages left for Dunn
was Asmussen’s.

[¶36.] Asmussen contends that the testimony of the DCI agent Bierne that in

his opinion the voice on the telephone messages was that of Asmussen was

improperly admitted. However, no objection was made to the testimony at trial.

Therefore, the matter must be reviewed under the plain error doctrine.

[¶37.] The plain error rule requires a finding of: “(1) error, (2) that is plain,

(3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to

notice the error if (4) it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation

-16-
#23477, #23478

of judicial proceedings.’” Dillon, 2001 SD 97, ¶12, 632 NW2d at 43 (quoting State v.

Robinson, 1999 SD 141, ¶17, 602 NW2d 730, 735). The defendant bears the burden

of showing the error was prejudicial. State v. Talarico, 2003 SD 41, ¶30, 661 NW2d

11, 22 (citing State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶8, 628 NW2d 755, 757). An error is

prejudicial when “in all probability it produced some effect upon the jury’s verdict

and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it.” State v. Piper,

2006 SD 1, ¶18, 709 NW2d 783, 794 (citing State v. Lee, 1999 SD 81, ¶21, 599

NW2d 630, 634).

[¶38.] Asmussen claims the testimony was prejudicial in that it was

necessary for the State to show Asmussen engaged in a course of conduct.

Asmussen argues that without Bierne’s testimony the State would have been able

to show that only one telephone call from Asmussen was received by Dunn rather

than four telephone calls. Under Asmussen’s theory, the State would not have been

able to secure the conviction for stalking in violation of a protection order under

SDCL 22-19A-2, as it lacked evidence to show a course of conduct. However,

Asmussen does not make a claim that he is not guilty of violating SDCL 22-19A-2.

[¶39.] Asmussen’s argument must fail, as the jury could have arrived at the

conclusion that the voice on Dunn’s digital answering system was Asmussen’s

without Bierne’s opinion. The jury was able to listen to Asmussen speak during the

trial proceedings and on the videotape of the police interview. It was then able to

compare the voice exemplars to the messages left on the answering machine.

Bierne’s testimony was not necessary for the determination that it was Asmussen

-17-
#23477, #23478

who left the messages on Dunn’s digital voice message system. Because no

allegation of manifest injustice has been advanced, there can be no prejudice.

[¶40.] Moreover, it is clear from the trial transcript that Bierne testified as a

lay witness rather than an expert witness, in that the State’s Attorney asked the

following question: “Officer, did you use the discussion that you had with the

defendant to determine if you recognized the voice on the tape messages,” to which

Bierne replied “yes.” The next question posed was “And what was your conclusion

when you compared the two tapes or the series of tapes,” to which Bierne replied

“Well, I felt it was him that left the voice mail messages.”

[¶41.] Under SDCL 19-15-1, a lay witness may offer an opinion when

testimony is based on the perception of the witness and the testimony is helpful to a

clear understanding of the witness’s testimony. Bierne testified that he had

interviewed Asmussen and heard his voice at that time. Next, Bierne testified that

he listened to the voice on the digital voice message system and recognized it as

Asmussen’s based on what he personally perceived during the police interview.

Given that Bierne’s lay witness opinion satisfies the requirements of SDCL 19-15-1,

it was not error to admit the testimony at trial.

[¶42.] Affirmed.

[¶43.] SABERS, KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices,

concur.

-18-