Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury found Trent Danielson guilty of perjury. Danielson appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a court-appointed private investigator, and the court erred in denying a motion in limine and admitting used transmission parts into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's guilty verdict, as a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Danielson's motion for appointment of a private investigator, motion in limine to exclude the transmission parts, and motion to dismiss for the destruction of evidence. View "State v. Danielson" on Justia Law

Appellant Ryan Rademaker was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Rademaker moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop of his vehicle, arguing that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. The trial court denied his motion and convicted Rademaker of driving under the influence. Rademaker appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the issue, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Rademaker's car, and thus, the stop did not violate Rademaker's Fourth Amendment rights. View "State v. Rademaker" on Justia Law

Eric Robert was under a sentence of death entered by a circuit court judge and let the time to file an appeal expire. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in this case was statutorily obligated to review his sentence. The Court subsequently stayed Robert's execution and established a briefing schedule. Robert filed a motion to vacate those orders, arguing that the obligation to review his sentence did not grant the Court additional jurisdiction to stay his execution or to enter a briefing schedule. The Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate, holding that Robert's interpretation of S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27A-21, which included the argument that because Robert had not filed a notice of appeal the stay of proceedings contemplated by the statute was not available, was incorrect, as it would lead to an absurd result, flew in the face of the Court's authority, and was inconsistent with the constitutional analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court. View "State v. Robert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Simon Torres was convicted of attempted murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. Torres appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres's motion in limine to exclude a cell phone video of the shooting and photographs of the victim's gunshot wounds, as Torres did not establish that the photographs were unfairly prejudicial or that the trial court incorrectly determined that the photographs' probative value outweighed this potential prejudice; and (2) did not violate Torres's due process rights during arraignment by failing to advise him that he would receive mandatory consecutive sentences if convicted of both attempted murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

Without obtaining a search warrant, police attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to Elmer Zahn's vehicle. The GPS device enabled officers to track and record the speed, time, direction, and geographic location of Zahn's vehicle within five to ten feet for nearly a month. Police used the information they gathered to obtain a search warrant for two storage units that Zahn frequently visited. Officers subsequently recovered drug paraphernalia and drugs from one of the storage units. Before trial, the trial court denied Zahn's motion to suppress the evidence that the officers discovered during the execution of the search warrant. Zahn was subsequently convicted of several drug possession charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the attachment and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual's activities over an extended period of time requires a search warrant; and (2) thus, the warrantless attachment and use of the GPS device to monitor Zahn's activities for nearly a month was unlawful, and the evidence obtained through the use of the GPS device should be suppressed. View "State v. Zahn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jeremy Zephier was convicted of aggravated assault for attacking a man who entered the apartment in which Zephier was drinking alcohol with acquaintances. Zephier appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Zephier's proposed instruction regarding when it is lawful to use force in preventing a trespass and instead giving a pattern jury instruction, as Zephier's proposed instruction misstated the law; and (2) denying Zephier's motion for a new trial, as Zephier's trial counsel did not commit misconduct and Zephier did not prove all the necessary factors to warrant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Zephier" on Justia Law

Garry Rosen pleaded guilty to kidnapping. Rosen subsequently petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his plea was involuntary because the sentencing court (1) failed to advise him that he would waive his Boykin v. Alabama rights by pleading guilty, and (2) failed to determine whether Rosen understood he was waiving those rights. The heabeas court denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed, as (1) Rosen was never advised that by pleading guilty he would waive his right to a trial by jury, he would waive his right to compulsory process, and he would waive his right against self-incrimination; and (2) Rosen was never asked whether he understood he would be waiving those rights. Remanded. View "Rosen v. Weber" on Justia Law

Petitioner Misty Jo Oliver asked the trial court to expunge her record of two misdemeanor convictions pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 23A-3-26 through 23A-3-33 (collectively, the expungement statutes). The trial court granted her request. The State appealed on the grounds that under both the expungement statutes and the state Constitution the trial court was without jurisdiction to expunge records of Oliver's convictions. After analyzing the statutes and the legislative history, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislature did not intend for the expungement statutes to apply to convictions, and therefore, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by expunging the records of Oliver's convictions. View "State v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Stacy Brant pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary. As part of his sentencing, the court ordered that Brant provide a full and honest debrief as to the incident. The state Board of Pardons and Paroles later determined that Brant had violated the terms of his sentence by failing to comply with the court order to honestly debrief the incident and issued an order that partially revoked his suspended sentence. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. Brant appealed, contending that he was not given a fair warning that a failure to honestly debrief would result in the loss of his suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Brant received a prior fair warning that failing to give an honest debrief could result in a revocation of his suspended sentence; and (2) the circuit court and Board did not clearly err in finding that Brant had violated a condition of his suspended sentence. View "Brant v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles" on Justia Law

John Willey was arrested for three DUIs: in 2008, May 2010 and August 8, 2010. Willey pleaded guilty to charges for his May 2010 arrest on August 30, 2010 and was convicted on September 27, 2010. For Willey's August 8, 2010 arrest, the State filed a Part II information that alleged Willey had two prior DUI convictions. Willey argued that the conviction on September 27, 2010 was invalid for enhancement purposes. The circuit court denied the motion. After a stipulated court trial, Wiley was convicted of DUI based on the August 8, 2010 arrest. The next day, a jury convicted him on the Part II information, finding that he had two prior DUI convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 22-6-5.2, (1) the Part II information in this case constituted an enhanced penalty, and (2) Willey could not receive an enhanced penalty for a third offense DUI because he had not been convicted or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to the second offense previous in time to committing the third subsequent offense. Remanded. View "State v. Willey" on Justia Law