Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court reversing the judgment of the Department of Public Safety ordering Appellee's commercial driving privileges to be disqualified for one year, holding that commercial driver's license (CDL) disqualification under S.D. Codified Laws 32-12A-36(4) applies when a vehicle is used as a means to possess a felony quantity of marijuana.The Department disqualified Appellee's commercial driving privileges for one year pursuant to 32-12A-36(4) because he had been convicted of a felony committed in a vehicle by a CDL holder. The circuit court reversed Appellee's CDL disqualification, holding that the statute requires that a vehicle was an "instrumentality" of the felony. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Department's decision, holding (1) possession of a felony quantity of marijuana in a vehicle is "using a...vehicle in the commission of any felony" under section 13-21A-36(4); (2) the circuit court erred by holding that section 13-21A-36(4) was unconstitutionally vague; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the Department's disqualification of Appellee's CDL privileges. View "Ibrahim v. Department Of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage (DUI), holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant a preliminary hearing.The State charged Defendant with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Defendant moved for a preliminary hearing. The circuit court denied the motion. The State then filed a supplemental information alleging that Defendant had been convicted of two prior DUIs, thereby charging him with DUI third offense, a Class 6 felony. The plain language of S.D. Codified Laws 23A-4-3 entitles a defendant to a preliminary hearing if he is charged with an offense "punishable as a felony." The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because Defendant faced a potential felony conviction he was entitled to a preliminary hearing. View "State v. Rus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of simple assault against a law enforcement officer, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant claimed, among other things, that her conviction of aggravated assault was unlawful because the gun she was holding at the time of the incident giving rise to her convictions was inoperable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of Defendant's conduct giving rise to the simple assault charge; (2) did not err, under the circumstances, by not instructing the jury on the definition of a firearm and by prohibiting Defendant's argument regarding firearm operability; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, burglary, and other offenses, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) abused its discretion in admitting other act evidence from Defendant's ex-wife, but the error did not necessitate reversal; (2) followed the statutory procedures during jury selection such that structural or other reversible error did not occur; (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence entered after he pled nolo contendere to three counts of possession of child pornography pursuant to a plea agreement, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment or constitute an abuse of discretion.The circuit court sentenced Defendant to ten years' incarceration, with six years suspended on each count and credit for time served. The court ordered counts one and two to be served consecutively with count three to run concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Miles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of criminal solicitation of aiding and abetting first degree murder, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's pretrial and post-trial motions, in denying Defendant's requested jury instruction, or in admitting certain testimony.Defendant requested that a friend procure a gun for him so that he could kill a medical doctor who treated his wife. Based on this conduct, Defendant was convicted of criminal solicitation of aiding and abetting first-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the court erred in denying his pretrial and post-trial motions arguing that one cannot criminally solicit another to aid and abet an offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's pretrial and post-trial motions where S.D. Codified Laws 22-4A-1 permits a defendant to be charged with criminal solicitation of aiding and abetting an offense; (2) did not err in instructing the jury on the elements of aiding, abetting, or advising; and (3) erroneously admitted the doctor's testimony, but the error was not prejudicial. View "State v. Thoman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to a state officer on the grounds that the officer lacked authority to investigate crimes in Indian country, holding that the officer did not violate any jurisdictional principles by entering Indian country to investigate crimes that occurred outside Indian country.When Defendant spoke with agents from the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs at his home located on Indian trust land concerning property crimes that had occurred outside Indian country he produced evidence implicating him a burglary in Bennett County. Defendant was charged in state court. The circuit court suppressed Defendant's statements, concluding that the agents did not have authority to investigate state criminal offenses in Indian country. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show that the agents lacked authority to investigate state offenses while in Indian country or that the agents' actions infringed upon tribal sovereignty; and (2) Defendant failed to show a Fourth Amendment violation. View "State v. Cummings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court entering judgment in favor of Rapid City Medical Center (RCMC) and three of its doctors (collectively, Defendants) in this negligence action, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's request to call two rebuttal witnesses and refusing Plaintiff's proposed jury instruction on agency.In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not inform her of a growing mass in her chest that caused persistent issues with her throat and chest until the mass was removed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiff's request to call two rebuttal witnesses in an attempt to lay foundation for medical records not offered during Plaintiff's case-in-chief; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the agency instruction relative to the claims Plaintiff raised against Defendants. View "Frye-Byington v. Rapid City Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to remove a potential juror for cause.A jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of jury misconduct and irregularity, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the removal of a juror for cause. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed after reviewing the entire void dire proceeding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to remove the juror at issue for cause. View "State v. Leader Charge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of three counts of grand theft by misappropriation of funds by a contractor, holding that the circuit court erred by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.Each count on which Defendant was convicted concerned a different construction project. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the convictions, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence on one or more essential elements, and therefore, the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on each conviction. View "State v. Suchor" on Justia Law