The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Larry Gene Richter on three counts of sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting, rejecting his appeals on multiple grounds in a decision filed Nov. 5, 2025.
Richter was convicted of sexual contact involving D.W., a developmentally disabled adult who was his neighbor. The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred during a Fourth of July celebration at Richter's Sioux Falls home, where he hosted guests with food, fireworks, and other amenities over festivities that began July 3 and lasted into the early hours of July 4.
The case presented several appellate issues, with Richter challenging four aspects of his trial proceedings. The primary preserved issues involved the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's evidence and at the end of the trial. Additionally, Richter challenged the circuit court's decision to allow victim D.W. to testify while holding a stuffed animal during the proceedings.
Richter also raised two issues that the Supreme Court noted he failed to preserve for appellate review. These involved testimony from a physician who evaluated D.W. following his encounters with Richter and matters relating to the State's cross-examination of Richter during trial.
The case was heard by the South Dakota Supreme Court on appeal from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, with the Honorable Jon C. Sogn presiding as the trial judge. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 8, 2025.
Justice Myren authored the opinion for the high court, which ultimately rejected all of Richter's appellate challenges. The court's affirmation of the conviction suggests it found sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict on all three counts and determined that the trial proceedings were conducted properly.
The use of comfort items during testimony, such as the stuffed animal D.W. was permitted to hold, represents an ongoing area of legal consideration in cases involving vulnerable witnesses. Courts must balance accommodating witnesses who may have disabilities or trauma with ensuring defendants receive fair trials free from prejudicial influences.
In sexual assault cases involving developmentally disabled victims, prosecutors often face unique challenges in presenting testimony that is both compelling and legally sound. The victim's cognitive limitations can affect their ability to communicate effectively about traumatic experiences, making supportive measures like comfort items potentially important for obtaining clear testimony.
Defense attorneys, however, may argue that such accommodations could improperly influence juries by generating sympathy for witnesses or suggesting vulnerability that could prejudice deliberations against defendants. Courts must carefully weigh these competing interests when making evidentiary rulings.
The Supreme Court's decision to affirm suggests the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the stuffed animal accommodation. The ruling indicates the court found this supportive measure did not rise to the level of prejudicial error that would warrant overturning the conviction.
Richter was represented by attorney Nicole J. Laughlin of Sioux Falls. The State was represented by Attorney General Marty J. Jackley and Assistant Attorney General Angela R. Shute of Pierre.
The conviction involved charges under South Dakota law criminalizing sexual contact with persons incapable of consenting. Such statutes are designed to protect individuals whose developmental disabilities prevent them from legally consenting to sexual activity, recognizing their particular vulnerability to exploitation.
The case reflects broader legal principles governing the prosecution of sexual offenses against vulnerable populations. Courts must ensure that accommodations for witnesses with disabilities do not compromise defendants' constitutional rights while also recognizing that traditional courtroom procedures may need modification to ensure effective participation by witnesses with cognitive limitations.
The Supreme Court's affirmation of the conviction on all three counts means Richter's criminal penalties will stand. The decision also establishes precedent for how South Dakota courts may handle similar cases involving developmentally disabled victims and requests for testimonial accommodations.
The ruling demonstrates the state high court's approach to balancing victim rights and defendant protections in sensitive criminal cases. By affirming the conviction while addressing multiple appellate challenges, the court reinforced both the validity of the underlying prosecution and the propriety of the trial court's evidentiary decisions.
The case was designated as #30804-a-SPM and assigned citation 2025 S.D. 58 in the state's official reports. The decision represents the final resolution of Richter's direct appeal, though potential post-conviction remedies may remain available under South Dakota law.