By Chet Brokaw, The Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- The South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld the arson conviction of a Watertown man who torched his house after it was awarded to his ex-wife in their divorce.
Stephen Cordell had argued he should be let out of prison because his lawyer made mistakes that denied him a fair trial. His lawyer should have done more to suppress comments made to a law officer and test results that found a possible chemical on his clothing after the fire, Cordell contended.
The Supreme Court rejected Cordell’s claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective.
Cordell was married to Rachel “Shelly” Brandriet in 1980. After she filed for divorce in 1998, Cordell threatened to burn their house near Watertown if it was awarded to her.
The house and a nearby shed were severely damaged by fire on Oct. 25, 1999, the day Cordell received court documents showing his ex-wife would get the house and custody of their three children. A witness saw a car like Cordell’s leave the area just before the fire was discovered, and officials discovered evidence of arson in the house and shed.
Cordell agreed to be questioned by law officers that afternoon. He denied setting the fire but acknowledged he was alone in the house after receiving the divorce papers and said he knew of no one else who would want to burn it down.
Law officers placed Cordell in protective custody because he appeared depressed and potentially suicidal.
In April 2000, a jury convicted Cordell of second-degree arson for the house fire and third-degree arson for the shed blaze. He received 12 years in prison.
Cordell contended his lawyer should have tried to keep the jury from hearing the results of tests on his clothing. Those tests indicated the possible presence of a chemical, but no identifiable flammable liquid.
The Supreme Court said Cordell’s constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were not violated when law officers took his clothing and tested it.
Law officers can search the clothing of an arrested person for weapons, escape tools or evidence, and they can do the same search when someone is held for mental health reasons, the high court said.
Authorities also had probable cause to associate Cordell’s clothing with a crime, so they could conduct the chemical tests without getting a search warrant, the court majority said.
Two justices said they believe police should have obtained a search warrant before testing the clothes. But even if the seizure and testing had been improper, Cordell’s conviction would stand because the other evidence in his trial overwhelmingly established his guilt, all the justices said.
Cordell gave up his right to remain silent when he talked with a law officer after the fire, and officers did not improperly pressure him to talk, the Supreme Court said.