Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Eric Robert pled guilty to first-degree murder for the death of penitentiary guard Ronald Johnson, a 23-year veteran correctional officer at the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. Defendant waived his right to a jury’s determination of whether the death sentence would be imposed. The circuit court conducted a pre-sentence hearing and imposed the death penalty. Subsequent to pleading guilty, Defendant consistently sought imposition of the death penalty and that the execution be expedited. Even though he waived his right to appeal the death sentence, the Supreme Court was statutorily mandated to conduct a review of the sentence. Upon review, the Court found that the circuit court did not base its sentencing decision on any passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. The evidence supported the aggravating circumstances found by the circuit court, and the death sentence was neither disproportionate nor excessive when compared to other South Dakota cases in which a capital sentencing phase was conducted. The death sentence was affirmed, and the case remanded to the circuit court for entry of a warrant of execution. View "South Dakota v. Robert" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Wayne and Sandra Masloskie sued real estate agent G. Pat Baldwin and Century 21 American Real Estate Inc. on a number of causes of action including actual fraud. Baldwin and Century 21 moved for summary judgment, arguing that all causes of action were barred by statutes of limitation governing realtor malpractice. The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their cause of action for fraud. Because that cause of action was subject to a longer statute of limitations, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded that portion of the judgment. View "Masloskie v. Century 21 American Real Estate, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Courtney Koch was arrested for DUI on February 27, 2011. The magistrate judge entered an order suppressing all evidence obtained from the initial traffic stop. The State appealed to the circuit court. Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's petition for intermediate appeal. The issue was whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain the State's appeal from the magistrate's order suppressing the evidence. Because the magistrate's order did not finally dispose of the case, it was not a final order appealable to the circuit court. View "South Dakota v. Koch" on Justia Law

A neighbor's complaint about marijuana directed Spearfish police officers to an apartment unit, where the officers smelled the odor of burnt marijuana outside the door. One tenant let the officers inside, but when the officers observed raw marijuana in plain view, another tenant demanded that the officers obtain a search warrant before they conducted any search. While the officers sought a warrant, they secured the apartment and detained all the tenants at the police station. On a motion to suppress, the circuit court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest two of the three tenants and search their apartment, but the detention at the station was unreasonable and violated their constitutional rights. The court suppressed all evidence. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for intermediate appeal to consider whether the circuit court erred as a matter of law when it suppressed defendants' statements and the evidence seized under the search warrant. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the search was not at issue as it was "indisputably" based on a valid warrant. Further, none of the information police used to secure the warrant related in any way to the seizure of the apartment. Had the officers never seized the apartment, "but instead conducted a perimeter stakeout to prevent anyone from entering the apartment and destroying evidence, the contraband now challenged would have been discovered and seized precisely as it was here." The Court reversed the suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "South Dakota v. Tillman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Randy Kramer initiated a breach of contract action against Mike D. Murphy and the William F. Murphy Self-Declaration of Trust (Trust). Tri-State Ethanol, LLC owned an ethanol plant in Rosholt, South Dakota. Kramer was one of the members and managers of Tri-State Ethanol. Kramer was also a member of White Rock Pipeline, LLC, which owned a pipeline that supplied natural gas to Tri-State Ethanol. In order to comply with various federal regulations, Tri-State Ethanol determined it was necessary to purchase the membership interests of Kramer, Murphy, Woods, and the Trust. To accomplish this, Tri-State Ethanol entered into a loan agreement (Loan Agreement) with Murphy and the Trust. Tri-State Ethanol was unable to meet its financial obligations and eventually filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, Murphy and the Trust reached a settlement agreement regarding payment of the Loan Agreement and the Disbursement Agreement. Murphy and the Trust, through its trustee, represented to the bankruptcy court that they would use the settlement proceeds to pay Kramer the amounts owed under the Disbursement Agreement. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement agreement. After the settlement proceeds from Tri-State Ethanol’s bankruptcy estate were distributed, Murphy and the Trust refused to pay Kramer the full amount listed in the Disbursement Agreement. Kramer then filed a complaint against Murphy and the Trust for breach of the Disbursement Agreement. Murphy filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue. He claimed that the forum-selection clauses contained in the Loan Agreement, the Balloon Note, and the Promissory Note controlled for any suit brought on the Disbursement Agreement. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the case. It found that while the Disbursement Agreement itself had no forum-selection clause, the other three agreements contained forum-selection clauses providing that the Fourteenth Judicial District in Rock Island County, Illinois was the proper forum. The circuit court reasoned that the agreements must be considered as a whole. After examining each of documents collectively as one contract, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the parties intended the venue for any suit on the Disbursement Agreement to be the Fourteenth (14th) Judicial District in Rock Island County, Illinois. The circuit court’s dismissal of this case was affirmed. View "Kramer v. William F. Murphy Self-Declaration of Trust" on Justia Law

Allison Marie and James (Jim) Joseph Marko married on September 26, 1998. Three children were born of the marriage. Allison was granted a divorce from Jim on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Jim's visitation with his children was conditioned on his having absolutely no contact with his mistress "Emmy" when the children were in his presence. Allison received sole custody of the children. In this divorce appeal, Jim asserted that the trial judge (1) should have disqualified himself because the judge presided over another case in which Emmy had been "enmeshed"; (2) abused his discretion in restricting visitation; and (3) erred in granting the Allison Marie a divorce on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Finding no merit to any of Jim's issues on appeal and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Marko v. Marko" on Justia Law

Claimant-Appellant Megan Peterson worked at a nursing home owned by The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (Good Samaritan). Claimant alleged that she sustained a work-related injury to her back when assisting a resident with a wheelchair. Good Samaritan denied the claim. Two doctors, who testified by deposition, disagreed whether Claimant suffered a work-related injury and whether employment was a major contributing cause of her back condition. The Department of Labor (Department), after considering the depositions and Claimant's medical records, determined that she failed to prove she sustained a compensable work-related injury. The Department also determined that Claimant failed to prove that her employment remained a major contributing cause of her condition and need for treatment. The circuit court affirmed. On de novo review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court concluded that one of the doctor's opinions was sufficient to meet Claimant's burden of proving that her employment caused a work-related injury and that was and remained a major contributing cause of her back condition and need for treatment. View "Peterson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Adam Olson entered into a plea agreement with the State, under the terms of which he pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft and one count of aggravated eluding of a law enforcement officer. Olson also admitted to being a habitual offender. In addition, Olson pleaded guilty to an additional count of grand theft, which the State charged him with, in a separate Information. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The circuit court denied his motion and sentenced him to fifteen years for the grand theft conviction and two years for the aggravated eluding of a law enforcement officer conviction. Defendant's sentence for aggravated eluding of a law enforcement officer was to run consecutive to his sentence for grand theft. The court also sentenced Defendant to serve ten years for the grand theft conviction that was charged in the separate Information. This sentence was to be served consecutive to his other sentences. Defendant appealed, raising: (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2) whether Defendant's sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion nor a violation of Defendant's constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "South Dakota v. Olson" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Leonard Alan Toohey guilty of first degree rape of a child. On appeal, he asserts that the child victim was not available for cross-examination as required under the Confrontation Clause, that the circuit court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of other acts, and that there was insufficient evidence to support proof of penetration. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that "rational jurors could [have found] proof of penetration" beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "South Dakota v. Toohey" on Justia Law

Dennis Most was convicted in a bench trial of four counts of sexual contact with a child. Most appealed, contending (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude prior acts evidence and his motion to offer the victim's prior allegation of sexual assault, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted prior acts evidence; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Most's motion to offer evidence of the victim's prior allegation of sexual assault; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain Most's convictions. View "State v. Most" on Justia Law