Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Scott Rudloff was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor under 13 years old. The case began when Rudloff's stepdaughter, L.H., disclosed to her brother, Luke Volk, that Rudloff had been sexually abusing her and her sister, L.R. Law enforcement was called, and forensic interviews and medical examinations were conducted. L.H. and L.R. provided detailed accounts of the abuse, and L.R.'s examination revealed an injury consistent with sexual abuse.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Lawrence County, South Dakota, denied Rudloff's motion to suppress his post-arrest custodial interview, finding that he had been advised of his Miranda rights and had not unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. The court also allowed testimony from various witnesses, including the victims, their mother Hillary, and Detective Anderson, who conducted the investigation.Rudloff appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, raising several issues, including the denial of his motion to suppress, the admission of certain testimonies, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Rudloff had impliedly waived his Miranda rights and did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimonies and determined that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were within the bounds of fair argument.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the conviction, concluding that the circuit court did not err in its rulings and that Rudloff received a fair trial. View "State v. Rudloff" on Justia Law

Donald Blazer was involved in a vehicle accident and voluntarily submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which showed a blood alcohol content of .102 percent. However, he refused to submit to a blood draw. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (Department) notified Blazer of its intent to disqualify his commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life, citing this refusal as a second violation of SDCL 32-12A-36, with the first being a 2014 DUI conviction. Blazer requested an administrative hearing, and the Department affirmed the disqualification of his CDL for life.Blazer appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Department’s decision. The circuit court concluded that Blazer’s voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis, meaning his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL. The Department then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The Court held that under SDCL 32-23-1.2, a preliminary breath test (PBT) is permitted and may be required in addition to a chemical test. The Court determined that Blazer’s refusal to submit to the blood draw constituted a refusal to submit to a chemical analysis as required by SDCL 32-12A-46. This refusal was a second violation under SDCL 32-12A-36, justifying the disqualification of Blazer’s CDL for life under SDCL 32-12A-37. The Court emphasized that a PBT is a preliminary test and does not fulfill the requirement for a chemical analysis under the implied consent laws. View "Blazer v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

In the early morning of March 19, 2022, Quincy Bear Robe, his girlfriend, and her friends were in a hotel room when Myron Pourier and his friends entered uninvited. An altercation ensued, during which Bear Robe and Isaac Runningshield discharged their guns, resulting in Pourier's death from two gunshot wounds. Bear Robe was found nearby with a .40 caliber handgun and later bragged about the shooting to a friend. He was indicted on charges including second-degree murder and first-degree murder but accepted a plea agreement to plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, accepted Bear Robe's guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI noted Bear Robe's lack of prior criminal record, his young age, and several mitigating factors from his childhood, including mental health issues and a chaotic home environment. Despite these factors and letters of support from family and community members, the circuit court sentenced Bear Robe to 75 years in the penitentiary without any time suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. Bear Robe argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by focusing too heavily on general deterrence and not adequately considering mitigating evidence. He also contended that the sentence was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion, as it had thoroughly considered Bear Robe's character and history, and the sentence was within the permissible range. The court also found that the 75-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense of first-degree manslaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "State v. Bear Robe" on Justia Law

In February 2022, a Brule County grand jury indicted Nathan Antuna for third-degree rape, alleged to have occurred in August 2016. Antuna requested the State to obtain any mental health treatment records of the victim, K.B. The State objected, stating it had no such records and was unaware if any existed. The circuit court ordered the State to determine if such records existed and provide them for an in-camera review. K.B. asserted her rights under Marsy’s Law, and Antuna served a subpoena on K.B. seeking the same records. The State moved to quash the subpoena, but the court ordered the State to investigate and obtain any records for in-camera inspection. The State filed a petition for an intermediate appeal, which was granted.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit directed the State to inquire about the existence of K.B.'s mental health records and provide them for in-camera review. The State objected, asserting that it had no such records and that K.B. was asserting her rights under Marsy’s Law. The court did not rule on the motion to quash but ordered the State to investigate and obtain any records. The State filed a petition for an intermediate appeal, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s order. The court held that the Brady rule does not require prosecutors to investigate defense theories or compel the State to collect evidence for the defense. The court also held that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation is a trial right, not a discovery tool. The court found that SDCL 23A-13-4 does not support the circuit court’s order, as it requires prosecutors to disclose information within their possession, not to create or investigate new information. The court directed the circuit court to grant the motion to quash Antuna’s subpoena, as it did not meet the requirements for production under the Nixon factors. View "State v. Antuna" on Justia Law

Zachary C. Dietz pleaded guilty to two counts of counterfeiting lottery tickets in two separate cases. The circuit court imposed five-year suspended sentences on each conviction. Later, the State filed petitions to revoke Dietz’s suspended sentences for violating probation terms. Dietz admitted to the violations, and the court executed the entire five-year sentence on one conviction while leaving the other five-year sentence suspended. Dietz appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by not finding aggravating circumstances before revoking the suspended sentences. The State challenged the Supreme Court of South Dakota’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Lincoln County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Dietz was indicted for counterfeiting lottery tickets and pleaded guilty to both charges. The court imposed suspended sentences with probation. When Dietz violated probation terms, the State filed petitions to revoke the suspended sentences. Dietz admitted to the violations, and the court executed one of the five-year sentences while keeping the other suspended.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), which allows appeals from final orders in special proceedings. The court determined that probation revocation proceedings are special proceedings separate from the original criminal prosecution. The court also held that SDCL 22-6-11, which requires a finding of aggravating circumstances for certain sentences, applies only at the time of the original sentencing and not during probation revocation proceedings. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in revoking Dietz’s probation without finding aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision. View "State v. Dietz" on Justia Law

Maxton Pfeiffer shot and killed his friend Ty Scott while they were at their friend Cody Siemonsma’s apartment. Pfeiffer admitted to sweeping Siemonsma’s .45 caliber pistol in Scott’s direction and discharging it, believing it was unloaded after checking it. Pfeiffer was charged with first-degree manslaughter. He argued that the circuit court erred by not instructing the jury that the State had to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, by refusing a mistake of fact instruction, and challenged an evidentiary ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, held a seven-day trial. The jury found Pfeiffer guilty of first-degree manslaughter. Pfeiffer appealed, asserting errors in jury instructions, the exclusion of a deputy state’s attorney’s statement, and the sufficiency of the evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, correctly stated the law and adequately informed the jury of the State’s burden to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a mistake of fact instruction, as the instructions given sufficiently allowed Pfeiffer to present his defense. Additionally, the court ruled that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the deputy state’s attorney’s statement, as it was minimally relevant and potentially confusing to the jury. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Pfeiffer’s conviction, as a rational jury could find that Pfeiffer acted recklessly. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Pfeiffer" on Justia Law

Matthew Fuller was convicted of possessing more than two ounces but less than one-half pound of marijuana, a felony, and was placed on supervised probation. After two subsequent arrests, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. The court appointed two attorneys for Fuller, both of whom withdrew. The court did not appoint a third attorney and conducted the revocation hearing with Fuller representing himself. Fuller was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced to a previously suspended two-year prison term.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Fuller was arrested following a traffic stop and charged with marijuana possession. He was released on bond and represented by multiple attorneys who withdrew. Fuller pled guilty to a lesser charge, and the court imposed a suspended sentence with probation. After his subsequent arrests, the court ordered him held without bond pending the revocation hearing. Fuller’s attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and the court did not appoint new counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that while Fuller was entitled to appointed counsel under state law, he did not demonstrate that the lack of counsel prejudiced the outcome of the revocation hearing. The court found sufficient evidence to support the probation violation, including Fuller’s use of methamphetamine. The court also rejected Fuller’s claims of judicial bias and due process violations, affirming the lower court’s decision to revoke his probation and execute the suspended sentence. View "State V. Fuller" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Michael Waldner, Jr., and Mark Waldner, were indicted in Brule County, South Dakota, on charges of rape and sexual contact involving a minor, E.H. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained a journal written by E.H. detailing the alleged misconduct. The defendants sought additional journals and diaries written by E.H. through a subpoena duces tecum. E.H. moved to quash the subpoena, but the circuit court denied the motion and ordered an in-camera inspection of the journals. E.H. then filed a petition for an intermediate appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The circuit court initially granted the defendants' motion for further discovery, ordering the State to acquire the journals for an in-camera inspection. E.H. filed a motion to quash the subpoena, asserting her right to privacy under Marsy’s Law. The court vacated its initial discovery order but allowed the defendants to reissue the subpoena. E.H. again moved to quash, but the court denied her motion, leading to her appeal.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), as the circuit court’s order was a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding. The court concluded that E.H.’s right to privacy under Marsy’s Law is not absolute and must be balanced against the defendants’ constitutional rights. However, the court found that the circuit court erred by not applying the Nixon factors (relevancy, admissibility, and specificity) when denying E.H.’s motion to quash. The court reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State V. Waldner" on Justia Law