Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Chad Martin was indicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor charges following a high-speed chase during which he struck another vehicle, injuring one of its occupants. Martin pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular battery and one count of aggravated eluding. He also admitted to a part II habitual offender information. The circuit court sentenced Martin to twenty years in the state penitentiary with eight years suspended on the vehicular battery conviction and imposed a suspended two-year sentence on the aggravated eluding conviction. Martin appealed, claiming the circuit court abused its discretion by considering uncharged conduct at sentencing.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court considered the police reports and Martin's conflicting accounts of how he came to possess the stolen vehicle. The court noted Martin's extensive criminal history, substance abuse, and the circumstances of the high-speed chase. The court sentenced Martin to twenty years in the state penitentiary with eight years suspended on the vehicular battery conviction and a suspended two-year sentence on the aggravated eluding conviction, to run concurrently but consecutively to a prior sentence for which Martin was on parole.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by considering uncharged conduct at sentencing without making explicit findings. The court found that the circuit court appropriately considered multiple sentencing factors beyond the uncharged conduct, reflecting a proper exercise of its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Steven Tuopeh and Jeff Pour were involved in an altercation with Christopher Mousseaux near the Red Sea Pub in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Mousseaux, who appeared intoxicated, swung at Tuopeh and Pour, then retreated. Tuopeh and Pour chased Mousseaux, who fell, and they proceeded to beat him. Mousseaux died from blunt force trauma. Tuopeh was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter. Pour entered a plea bargain and was sentenced separately.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County denied Tuopeh’s motion for statutory immunity based on self-defense, finding the State rebutted his claim by clear and convincing evidence. The court also denied Tuopeh’s motion for judgment of acquittal and several of his proposed jury instructions. The jury found Tuopeh guilty of both second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter. The court vacated the manslaughter conviction to avoid double jeopardy and sentenced Tuopeh to life in prison for second-degree murder.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the alternative counts instruction, as the jury could consider multiple counts and the court could address double jeopardy concerns post-verdict. The court also found no error in the circuit court’s handling of witness Robinson’s refusal to testify, the admission of certain evidence, and the denial of Tuopeh’s motion for acquittal. The court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings and Tuopeh’s conviction and sentence. View "State v. Tuopeh" on Justia Law

James and Amber May hired RES Construction to build their home in Sioux Falls. RES subcontracted First Rate Excavate, Inc. to install the septic system and construct the foundation. The Mays alleged that the foundation was installed several feet below grade level, causing significant drainage and septic issues that damaged their home, yard, and neighboring properties. They sued First Rate for negligence. The circuit court dismissed the claim based on the economic loss doctrine, and the Mays appealed.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, dismissed the Mays' negligence claim, citing the economic loss doctrine, which limits remedies for purely economic losses to those specified in a contract. The court reasoned that the Mays lacked privity of contract with First Rate and that their claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the economic loss doctrine should not be expanded beyond claims arising from transactions involving the sale of defective goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court noted that the doctrine is designed to prevent parties from circumventing contract remedies by seeking tort remedies for economic losses. Since the Mays' claim was based on negligence and not on a UCC transaction, the economic loss doctrine did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the lack of privity between the Mays and First Rate further precluded the application of the economic loss doctrine. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "May v. First Rate Excavate" on Justia Law

Dreau Rogers was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the death of his wife, Destiny Rogers, and several other offenses. Rogers claimed that a third party, Donovan Derrek, was the actual perpetrator. Rogers appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and in failing to give a spoliation instruction due to the State's handling of Derrek's phone, which was returned to Derrek and subsequently destroyed.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Lawrence County, South Dakota, denied Rogers's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court noted that the forensic evidence, including DNA and gunshot residue, supported the conclusion that Rogers, not Derrek, was the shooter. The court also found that Derrek's alibi was corroborated by text messages and testimony, and that Rogers's inconsistent statements and prior threats against Destiny further supported the conviction.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of second-degree murder and related charges. The court also found that the State did not violate Rogers's due process rights by returning Derrek's phone, as there was no evidence of bad faith by law enforcement. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rogers's request for a spoliation instruction, as the record did not support a finding of intentional destruction of evidence by the State.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's rulings, upholding Rogers's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Clyde and Nancy Straatmeyer purchased a lot within a subdivision governed by a restrictive covenant. They began constructing a house with a large three-car garage, prompting their neighbors to sue to stop the construction, claiming it violated the covenant. The Straatmeyers counterclaimed, seeking to have the covenant declared void. The circuit court held a bench trial and ultimately declared the covenant null and void.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Meade County, South Dakota, found that the restrictive covenant had been routinely violated by numerous property owners within the subdivision without any enforcement action taken since its inception in 1976. The court determined that enforcing the covenant against the Straatmeyers while allowing other violations to persist would be inequitable. The court also found that the covenant's terms, such as the three-car garage limit and the prohibition on business activities, had been violated by several plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declaring the covenant void. The court noted that the widespread, unchallenged violations of the covenant undermined its purpose and that enforcing it selectively would be unjust. The Supreme Court agreed that it would be impractical and harmful to require all properties to comply with the covenant and that voiding the covenant was an appropriate equitable remedy. View "Hood v. Straatmeyer" on Justia Law

Lydelle Turner was indicted on multiple counts following a drive-by shooting in Sioux Falls. He filed several motions, including a motion to suppress, a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment of acquittal, and a motion for a new trial, all of which were denied by the circuit court. Turner objected to the introduction of a screenshot photograph from a traffic camera video, but the court overruled this objection. The court also rejected three jury instructions proposed by Turner. Turner appealed these decisions.The circuit court denied Turner’s motion to suppress Driver’s identification, finding the identification procedure suggestive but necessary under the circumstances. The court also denied Turner’s motion to dismiss based on the late disclosure of a ballistics report, instead granting a continuance to allow Turner time to prepare. The court admitted the Milestone photograph into evidence, despite Turner’s objections regarding foundation and hearsay. Turner’s motion for judgment of acquittal was denied, with the court interpreting SDCL 22-14-20 as not requiring the State to prove that the vehicles were occupied at the time of the shooting. The court also denied Turner’s proposed jury instructions related to eyewitness identification and the interpretation of SDCL 22-14-20.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decisions. It held that the show-up identification was necessary and reliable, the continuance was an appropriate remedy for the late disclosure of the ballistics report, and the admission of the Milestone photograph, though an abuse of discretion, was not prejudicial. The court also upheld the denial of Turner’s motion for judgment of acquittal and his proposed jury instructions, finding no abuse of discretion. Finally, the court found no due process violation in the handling of the Milestone video and Flores’ testimony, affirming the denial of Turner’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Donika Rae Gonzales was convicted in 2014 by a jury of first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault for beating her boyfriend’s four-year-old son to death. Gonzales filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the jury district, which included residents from both Brule and Buffalo Counties, diluted the percentage of prospective Native American jurors, violating her constitutional rights. She also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for her attorney’s failure to introduce certain evidence at trial. The habeas court found that the jury district violated both federal and state constitutions and reversed her conviction without addressing the ineffective assistance claims.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit initially sent jury questionnaires to only Buffalo County residents, but due to an inadequate number of responses, included Brule County residents as well, based on a 2011 standing order. Gonzales agreed to hold the trial in Brule County and use a combined jury pool from both counties. The jury pool consisted of 236 jurors, with 22% Native American representation, compared to 29% in the combined population of the two counties. Gonzales appealed her conviction, but it was summarily affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 2016.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the habeas court’s decision. The court held that the use of a jury district comprising Buffalo and Brule Counties did not violate the South Dakota Constitution’s requirement for a trial by a jury of the “county or district” where the offense occurred. The court also found that Gonzales failed to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s fair cross-section requirement, as the absolute disparity in Native American representation was only 7%, below the constitutional threshold. Consequently, Gonzales’ ineffective assistance claims were also deemed without merit, and the order granting habeas relief was vacated. View "Gonzales v. Markland" on Justia Law

Mary Langbehn sued her son, Michael Langbehn, and his company, Langbehn Land and Cattle Co. (LL&C), alleging Michael breached his fiduciary duty as a co-trustee of his deceased father’s trust. Michael filed counterclaims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit related to improvements he claimed to have made to real estate he leased from his father’s trust and Mary’s separate living trust. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Mary on her claims and on Michael’s counterclaims. The court also removed Michael as a co-trustee and awarded Mary $513,796.94 in damages. Michael appealed.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, found that Michael had engaged in self-dealing and breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to the credit trust by profiting from subleases. The court concluded that Michael failed to keep Mary reasonably informed and acted in bad faith. The court granted summary judgment on Mary’s claims and Michael’s counterclaims, and removed Michael as a co-trustee.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that Michael did not engage in impermissible self-dealing because the trust instrument expressly allowed him to lease the land at below-market rates. However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Michael disclosed the subleases and additional income to Mary. The court reversed the summary judgment on Mary’s breach of fiduciary duty claims and the decision to remove Michael as a co-trustee, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Michael’s counterclaims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, as there was no evidence that Mary requested or agreed to pay for the improvements. View "Langbehn V. Langbehn" on Justia Law

Todd Weiland filed a personal injury lawsuit against Patrick Bumann for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident while Bumann was on duty as a South Dakota Highway Patrol trooper. The circuit court denied Weiland’s motion for partial summary judgment on negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and failure to mitigate damages, leading to a jury trial. The court also denied Bumann’s request to apply a recklessness standard instead of ordinary negligence. At trial, the court excluded the Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Department accident report, certain SDHP investigation materials, and representations by Bumann’s insurance adjuster. The jury found Bumann negligent but also found Weiland contributorily negligent, awarding Weiland $18,661.50 in damages.Weiland appealed, challenging the circuit court’s rulings. The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found Weiland’s challenge to the denial of summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law on negligence moot since the jury found Bumann negligent. The court upheld the denial of summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law on contributory negligence and failure to mitigate damages, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.The court also upheld the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, finding no prejudice from the exclusion of the accident report and SDHP investigation materials, as the jury heard similar testimony. The exclusion of the insurance adjuster’s testimony was also upheld due to lack of an offer of proof. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the jury instruction on liability insurance and precluding a per diem argument for non-economic damages, as the evidence did not support such an argument.The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, making it unnecessary to address issues raised by Bumann’s notice of review. View "Weiland V. Bumann" on Justia Law

Puffy’s, LLC was first on a waiting list to receive a state registration certificate from the South Dakota Department of Health (Department) to operate a medical cannabis dispensary in Rapid City. After the Department failed to issue the certificate, Puffy’s filed a mandamus action in circuit court to compel the Department to issue the certificate. The circuit court granted the writ of mandamus, and the Department appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and abused its discretion in granting the writ.The circuit court found that it had jurisdiction because Puffy’s had no administrative remedy to exhaust, as the Department had not taken final action that could be appealed. The court also ruled that the matter was not moot because the Department had not issued the certificate. On the merits, the court concluded that the Department had a clear duty to issue the certificate to Puffy’s under ARSD 44:90:03:16, which mandates that a voided certificate must be awarded to the next applicant on the waiting list. The court found that Puffy’s had no other remedy and was entitled to the writ.The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision. It held that the circuit court had jurisdiction because there was no administrative remedy available for Puffy’s to exhaust. The court also agreed that the matter was not moot. On the merits, the Supreme Court found that the Department had a clear duty to issue the certificate to Puffy’s under the plain language of ARSD 44:90:03:16, which does not require additional application or fees from waitlisted applicants. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the writ of mandamus without an evidentiary hearing, as the case turned on legal interpretation rather than factual disputes. View "Puffy’s LLC v. State of South Dakota" on Justia Law