Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with alternative counts of driving under the influence after being stopped for committing a traffic violation and having blood evidence seized from her without a warrant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test administration and results. The magistrate court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless search conducted under the state’s implied consent statutes was unconstitutional and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the blood draw in this case violated the warrant requirement of the federal constitution and state constitution; and (2) because the evidence was not obtained during a search conducted in “reasonable reliance on binding precedent,” it was not subject to the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Fierro" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving or control of a vehicle while having 0.08 percent or more of alcohol in his blood. The offense was found to be a third offense DUI within a ten-year period, and Defendant was sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress blood evidence seized without a warrant, as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in this case; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to strike a previous DUI conviction from the part II information. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

While Defendant was incarcerated, he killed a corrections officer. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to death for the murder. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded Defendant’s death sentence, concluding that the circuit court may have committed prejudicial error by improperly considering, for sentencing purposes, statements made by Defendant in a psychological evaluation procured to determine his competency to stand trial. The Court remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing without the use or consideration of the psychological evaluation unless Defendant called its authority to testify. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended judgment of conviction sentencing Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s death sentence, holding (1) the Court’s remand directions in Berget I did not infringe upon any of Berget’s constitutional rights; (2) the limited remand did not implicate or otherwise violate Defendant’s rights to be present and to allocution; and (3) Defendant’s judicial bias argument failed. View "State v. Berget" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the first-degree rape of a nine-year-old girl. Prior to trial, the State moved to partially close the courtroom during the victim’s testimony to everyone but the parties, the media, and the State’s victim-witness assistant. The trial court ordered disclosure, and defense counsel did not object. On appeal, Defendant challenged the courtroom closure, alleging, inter alia, that the closure violated his right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel, rather than a defendant personally, may waive a defendant’s right to a public trial; and (2) the trial court did not commit plain error by closing the courtroom to the general public during the victim’s testimony. View "State v. Bauer" on Justia Law

After highway patrol troopers stopped a vehicle, in which Defendant was a passenger, for a traffic infraction, the trooper smelled marijuana on the driver and in the vehicle. Defendant then admitted to the presence of marijuana in the back of the vehicle. A trooper subsequently handcuffed Defendant, patted down his person, and found cocaine on Defendant’s person. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The circuit court suppressed the cocaine seized from Defendant’s person, concluding that the State failed to establish that the warrantless search of Defendant’s person was justified under any exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s person did not fall within the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement; but (2) the cocaine evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of first degree rape, sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen, and aggravated incest based on allegations that Defendant had sexually abused his nine-year-old granddaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting testimony as to the victim’s brother’s statements; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Defendant to proceed pro se at sentencing; (3) Defendant’s sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) Defendant’s arguments that he received effective assistance of counsel at trial were not ripe for review on direct appeal. View "State v. Craig" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to eight years incarceration. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. At issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence establishing that Defendant exercised dominion or control over a video file containing child pornography when the State presented no direct evidence that Defendant possessed the video, but rather relied on circumstantial evidence to convict Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.View "State v. Riley" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Specifically, Defendant contended that police officers did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop or frisk him, and therefore, the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant was not subjected to an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore, the subsequently discovered evidence was admissible.View "State v. Mohr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several sex-related crimes, all involving one particular child victim. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by allowing a police detective's opinion on why defendants accused of sex offenses against children do not confess during interrogation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the child victim's statements made to a forensic interviewer; and (3) abused its discretion in allowing an expert witness for the State to give a medical diagnosis of "child sexual abuse."View "State v. Buchholtz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State’s peremptory strike of a Native American veniremember was racially motivated. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court had failed to address third step of the Batson v. Kentucky analysis and remanded with directions for the court to determine whether Defendant satisfied his burden to prove the State’s peremptory strike was racially motivated. On remand, the circuit court performed the third step and concluded that the State’s strike was not based on purposeful racial discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed after a de novo review, holding that Defendant failed to carry his burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law