Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two candidates, Anthony Kathol and Celestine Stadnick, sought nomination for State Senate in South Dakota’s District 27. Stadnick submitted her candidacy petition with 155 signatures, above the 50 required. However, her declaration of candidacy listed an address different from her voter registration, and Kathol challenged her candidacy on these grounds, alleging that state law demands a single principal address. Kathol also claimed many petition signatures were defective, specifically objecting to some signers listing their county as “Oglala” instead of “Oglala Lakota.”The Secretary of State reviewed Kathol’s affidavit and found that, despite some invalid signatures, Stadnick still had enough valid signatures to qualify. The Secretary rejected Kathol’s address discrepancy argument and accepted “Oglala” as a sufficient county designation for voter registration. Kathol appealed to the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, which allowed Stadnick to intervene. In circuit court, Kathol raised new objections to additional signatures and reiterated his address argument. The circuit court found some signatures invalid but determined that listing “Oglala” substantially complied with statutory requirements. It also concluded there is no statutory requirement for a candidate’s declaration address to match voter registration. With at least 53 valid signatures, Stadnick was certified as a candidate.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the appeal. It held that the circuit court exceeded its appellate authority by considering signature challenges not raised before the Secretary and limited its review to those challenges presented to the Secretary. The Court affirmed the Secretary’s and circuit court’s determinations that the “Oglala” county designation constituted substantial compliance and that South Dakota law does not require a candidate’s declaration address to match their voter registration address. The Supreme Court affirmed the certification of Stadnick’s candidacy for District 27. View "Kathol v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A chemical dependency counselor and clinical supervisor, who also served as a treatment team representative for a drug court program, developed a relationship with a drug court coordinator. The coordinator requested drugs from the counselor, who procured them through her boyfriend. After several exchanges, the coordinator died from an overdose. Law enforcement traced the drugs to the counselor and her boyfriend. A grand jury indicted the counselor for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, but she ultimately pleaded guilty to an amended charge of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine, following a plea agreement.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, accepted the plea and sentenced the counselor to five years in the state penitentiary, suspending one year contingent on compliance with treatment and payment of costs. The court cited several aggravating factors justifying departure from presumptive probation, including the counselor’s failure to cooperate with a presentence investigation, drug use while employed as a counselor, failure to take responsibility, repeated unsuccessful treatment attempts, and connection to the coordinator’s death. The counselor appealed, arguing that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for her offense.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case under a plain error standard, as the issue was not raised in the lower court. The court found that the circuit court erred by imposing a sentence authorized for a Class 5 felony rather than for a Class 6 felony, which is the appropriate classification for conspiracy to possess a controlled substance under South Dakota law. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing within the statutory limits for a Class 6 felony. View "State V. Pray" on Justia Law

A church organization sued its pastor after he withdrew $223,000 from a parish bank account and deposited the funds into his personal account. The pastor asserted that the money was a personal gift from a church member, who had written three $300,000 checks during a church event. One check was made payable to the church, while the other two had blank payee lines and were delivered in sealed envelopes to two pastors. The recipient pastor initially gave his check to the church president, who filled in the church’s name as payee and deposited the check in the parish account. Later, the church member allegedly told the pastor that the check was intended for him personally, prompting the pastor to transfer the funds to his own account.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Davison County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the church on its claims for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty and against the pastor on his counterclaims for conversion and fraud. The court found that all money in the parish account belonged to the church or its parish and concluded that a blank check was not sufficient delivery of a gift. The court also awarded prejudgment interest to the church.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. It held that the check delivered to the pastor was not a completed gift under South Dakota law, but this finding alone did not entitle the church to summary judgment. The court determined that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the pastor’s fraud claim, specifically whether the church obtained the funds through misrepresentation of the donor’s intent. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims and remanded for further proceedings. It also reversed the award of prejudgment interest. View "Iglesia Pentecostal V. Torres" on Justia Law

Steve and Monica Zirbel purchased two landlocked parcels along Lake Alice in Deuel County, South Dakota, with neither parcel abutting a maintained roadway. After discovering that their presumed section line right-of-way access had been vacated, as asserted by local officials, they attempted to negotiate with neighboring landowners for access easements. When negotiations failed, they applied to the Deuel County Board of County Commissioners for statutory access under SDCL chapter 31-22. The Board initially denied their application, reasoning the parcels were not “isolated” because Lake Alice provided public highway access. Upon appeal, the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit disagreed with the Board’s reasoning, finding the parcels to be isolated, and remanded the case for further proceedings.Following remand, the Board conducted site visits and obtained an appraisal to assess damages for proposed right-of-way routes. The Board ultimately selected a route and assessed substantial damages divided among affected landowners, also charging the Zirbels for the appraisal cost. The Zirbels appealed again to the circuit court, challenging the damages assessment, the appraisal cost, and alleging a conflict of interest for one Board member. The circuit court reviewed the Board’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard, affirmed the damages assessment and access route, but reversed the appraisal cost charge to the Zirbels.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including a trial de novo. The Court held that the Board’s action was quasi-judicial, not quasi-legislative, requiring de novo review. The Court also directed the circuit court to determine whether the section line right-of-way had been lawfully vacated and whether the appraisal cost was a proper expense under SDCL 31-22-6. View "Zirbel v. Deuel County" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was accused of participating in a home invasion robbery. The incident occurred after the defendant arranged to visit an acquaintance's house under the pretense of a drug transaction. Shortly after the defendant arrived, two masked men entered the house, armed with handguns, and robbed the homeowner at gunpoint, taking his wallet and cash. One of the intruders shot the homeowner, but the injury was not fatal. The defendant was seen leaving the house immediately after the robbery and later maintained contact with one of the gunmen, assisting him in evading law enforcement. Evidence included text messages, security camera footage, and testimony linking the defendant to the planning and execution of the crimes.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Union County, presided over the jury trial. The State’s case was based on the theory that the defendant aided and abetted the principal offender. After the State’s evidence, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal. The court granted the motion as to some counts—dismissing duplicative robbery charges, a simple assault count, and an intentional damage to property count—but denied it as to five others. The jury found the defendant guilty on all remaining counts, including first-degree burglary, first-degree robbery, second-degree kidnapping, commission of a felony while armed with a firearm, and petty theft. The court imposed both active and suspended sentences.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that the defendant aided and abetted the principal in all charged offenses, including having advance knowledge that firearms would be used. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on all counts. View "State v. Bromley" on Justia Law

The plaintiff acquired real property via a tax deed after the previous owner, a limited liability company, failed to pay property taxes. The property had originally been purchased by two individuals who later transferred ownership to the LLC. When the LLC did not pay taxes for 2015, the county sold the property at a tax sale, with the plaintiff eventually purchasing the tax certificate and being assigned it in 2020. The plaintiff attempted to serve notice of intent to take a tax deed on the LLC at multiple addresses and ultimately provided the notice to the Minnesota Secretary of State, which accepted service as the LLC’s registered agent. The LLC did not redeem the property, and the county issued a tax deed to the plaintiff.The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court in Pennington County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the tax deed was void because notice was not personally served on the LLC. The plaintiff appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Dakota previously reversed that decision in Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC, holding that service on the Secretary of State constituted personal service. On remand, the plaintiff sought an order quieting title, but the circuit court denied this, later granting the defendants’ motion to make redemption and ordering the county to issue a certificate of redemption to the defendants. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the defendants were entitled to redeem the property. The Court held that the plaintiff properly acquired the tax deed under SDCL chapter 10-25 and followed the statutory procedure for quieting title under SDCL chapter 21-41. Because the LLC, the owner of record, did not timely redeem, the plaintiff owns the property in fee. The Court reversed the circuit court’s order granting redemption to the defendants and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bialota v. Lakota Lakes, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between neighboring property owners regarding an express easement for ingress and egress known as Canyon Creek Lane in Butte County, South Dakota. The express easement was created as part of a property sale and recorded, obligating each owner to contribute to maintenance costs. Tanya Lorenz acquired one of the parcels benefiting from the easement but later constructed her own driveway with direct access to Highway 34. Plaintiffs alleged that Tanya’s easement rights should be extinguished due to abandonment and lack of necessity, pointing to her nonuse, installation of a gate, lack of maintenance contributions, and creation of a new access. They also alleged nuisance conduct by Tanya.In the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, the court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their claims, finding Tanya had abandoned the easement and that it was extinguished due to lack of necessity. The court also found Tanya’s conduct constituted a nuisance, but did not award damages for that claim. At trial, the court determined Tanya was responsible for nine years of maintenance costs for the easement and awarded Plaintiffs $6,750 in damages. Tanya appealed the summary judgment and damages award.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that summary judgment on abandonment was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding Tanya’s intent and use of the easement. The Court also reversed the extinguishment of the easement for lack of necessity, noting that such a condition does not apply to express easements unless specified in the agreement. Summary judgment on the nuisance claim was also reversed due to insufficient evidence of substantial or unreasonable interference. The Court affirmed the award of damages for maintenance costs and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Maher v. Lorenz" on Justia Law

Brian Pyle sought a writ of mandamus to compel several South Dakota law enforcement agencies and officials to provide him with investigative records regarding the disappearance and death of his son, Ryan. Ryan was reported missing in August 2020, and his remains were found in November 2020 near the Snake Creek Recreation Area. Pyle alleged that he had made numerous requests for medical records and investigative reports, but had not received any documents. He cited Marsy’s Law in the South Dakota Constitution, asserting that as a victim or relative of a victim, he was entitled to these records.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, initially issued a peremptory writ requiring the respondents to answer. The State, representing all respondents, moved to quash the writ, arguing that the requested records contained confidential criminal justice information exempt from disclosure by law, and that Pyle had not exhausted administrative remedies for accessing such records. The State also contended that, since law enforcement found no evidence of foul play and concluded no crime had occurred, Marsy’s Law did not apply. After a hearing, in which no testimony or evidence was presented, the circuit court granted the State's motion, quashed the writ, and denied Pyle's application, finding Pyle was not a victim under Marsy’s Law and that no mandatory duty existed to disclose the records.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the circuit court’s decision for abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo. The Supreme Court held that Marsy’s Law requires a crime to have occurred for someone to be considered a victim and to invoke its rights. Because law enforcement determined no crime had been committed, Pyle was not entitled to the records under Marsy’s Law. Further, the Supreme Court found that South Dakota statutes exempt criminal investigative records from mandatory disclosure. The circuit court’s decision was affirmed. View "Pyle v. S.D. Division Of Criminal Investigation" on Justia Law

Police discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Jeremy Lucero’s vehicle, and his urine tested positive for methamphetamine. Lucero was charged with possession of a controlled substance, ingestion of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to possession of a controlled substance in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges. Both sides were free to recommend any sentence. At sentencing, the State emphasized Lucero’s extensive criminal history and risk assessment score, arguing for a penitentiary sentence. Lucero’s counsel sought probation, highlighting the statutory presumption of probation and arguing that criminal history alone should not justify a departure.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit considered the arguments. The court noted Lucero’s cooperation and remorse but found aggravating circumstances due to his 17 prior felony charges, seven felony convictions, high-risk assessment score, and continued methamphetamine use while on bond. The court concluded that these factors created a significant risk to the community and sentenced Lucero to five years in prison with three years suspended, departing from the statutory presumption of probation. The court made the required findings of aggravating circumstances both on the record and in the dispositional order.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed Lucero’s appeal, in which he contended that the circuit court needed to cite specific circumstances beyond prior convictions and personal drug use to support its departure. The Supreme Court held that Lucero had preserved the issue for appeal and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the circuit court’s findings were supported by the record and that the departure from presumptive probation was appropriate under the statutory requirements. View "State v. Lucero" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child was repeatedly found outside alone and unsupervised, sometimes in dangerous situations. On multiple occasions, law enforcement and Child Protective Services (CPS) intervened due to reports of neglect by both parents. CPS substantiated several neglect allegations, including incidents where the child was left outside without proper clothing and where the father locked the mother and child in their apartment. The child exhibited developmental delays and behavioral issues, and there were additional reports of domestic abuse and possible sexual abuse. Following these events, the child was ultimately placed in CPS custody and later in a treatment facility.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, became involved after the State filed an abuse and neglect petition. Both parents stipulated that the child was abused or neglected, and the court entered an adjudication accordingly. When the State moved to terminate parental rights, the proceedings were delayed because the father’s first court-appointed attorney withdrew due to threatening messages from the father. A substitute attorney was appointed, but the father’s aggressive and threatening behavior toward this attorney led to a second withdrawal. The court then appointed the substitute attorney as standby counsel and warned the father that further misconduct would require him to represent himself. The dispositional hearing proceeded with the father representing himself with the support of standby counsel. The court ultimately terminated both parents’ parental rights after finding ongoing neglect, substance abuse, and failure to address mental health concerns.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the circuit court erred by failing to appoint a third attorney for the father at the dispositional hearing. The Supreme Court held that a parent’s right to counsel in parental rights termination proceedings, both statutory and under due process, can be waived by the parent’s misconduct after clear warning. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision. View "Interest Of P.R.M." on Justia Law