Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Illinois. After he moved to South Dakota, Defendant was indicted on two charges of violating S.D. Codified Laws 22-24B-12, which requires registered sex offenders to inform law enforcement of their new addresses within three business days of moving. Defendant’s registration violations subjected him to an enhanced sentence as a repeat-registration violator, but the State did not seek enhancement under S.D. Codified Laws 22-24B-12.1. Instead, the State filed a part II information on both charges alleging that Defendant was a habitual offender under S.D. Codified Laws 22-7-7 because of Defendant’s 2009 felony conviction in Illinois. Defendant pleaded guilty to the failure-to-register charges in both indictments. After a court trial on the part II informations, the circuit court imposed class 5 felony sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 22-24-B-12.1 does not preempt the use of section 22-7-7; and (2) the circuit court did not err in refusing to dismiss the part II informations. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

After a court trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving with a .08 percent blood alcohol content. Defendant also pleaded guilty to a part II information alleging that this was his second driving under the influence offense. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement that he had been drinking and driving, asserting that the statements were made in violation of his Miranda rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter between Defendant and the law enforcement officer did not amount to a custodial interrogation, and therefore, the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress any incriminating statements made during the encounter. View "State v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, asking that the Supreme Court remand for resentencing on the grounds that the mandatory minimum sentence under S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-1.2 allows the court to suspend part of the sentence to give him a probationary sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the minimum sentence in section 22-22-1.2 does not allow for a term of probation rather than incarceration because the term “minimum sentences” in section 22-22-1.2 refers to required prison terms. View "State v. Bingham" on Justia Law

Twin brothers Ryan Alan Krause and Brian Michael Krause pleaded guilty to separate complaints alleging grand theft and four counts of unlawfully using a computer. The circuit court sentenced each of the Krauses to four years imprisonment for grand theft and two years imprisonment for each count of unlawfully using a computer system, and ordered all sentences to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Krauses’ consecutive sentences for unlawfully using a computer system do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) the circuit court did not err by imposing sentences of imprisonment instead of probation for the unlawful-use-of-computer-system convictions. View "State v. Krause" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence resulting from a traffic stop, including the results of a blood test, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conclude that Defendant had committed a crime in order to justify the traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and any evidence resulting from the stop was the product of an illegal search. View "State v. Stanage" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and received a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Defendant was fourteen years old when he committed the offense. After the United States Supreme Court issued Miller v. Alabama, which barred mandatory life sentences against juvenile homicide offenders, Defendant filed a motion to have his sentence correct. After a hearing, the sentencing court resentenced Defendant to ninety-two years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a ninety-two-year sentence is not categorically unconstitutional for a fourteen-year-old child; (2) because Defendant had the opportunity for release at age sixty, his sentence was not the legal equivalent of a life sentence without parole; (3) the sentencing court properly considered the mitigating qualities of youth set forth in Miller; (4) Defendant’s sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense; and (5) the sentencing court did not commit prejudicial error when it permitted an oral victim-impact statement by an individual outside the statutory definition of a victim. View "State v. Charles" on Justia Law

Sueellan Kline and her boyfriend, Douglas Strong, a parolee, lived together in a motel room. Parole agent Connie Johnson went to the motel room to obtain a urine sample from Strong. When Strong’s urine field-tested positive to methamphetamine Johnson removed Strong from the room and detained him in the hallway. Johnson then reentered the room and asked Kline if there were drugs or drug paraphernalia in the room. In response, Kline removed a methamphetamine pipe from her purse and handed it to Johnson. The pipe was used to obtain a search warrant for Kline’s urine, which tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Kline filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was obtained as the result of an illegal search. The circuit court denied the motion. Kline was subsequently convicted of ingestion of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Johnson lawfully reentered the residence and that Kline voluntarily consented to production of the methamphetamine pipe, and therefore, the evidence was not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Kline" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance. The circuit court departed from a presumptive sentence of probation and sentenced Defendant to four years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circumstances enumerated by the circuit court did not justify a departure from the presumptive sentence of probation, as the court failed to identify aggravating factors sufficient to deviate from a presumptive sentence of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s criminal history and complete disregard for supervised release indicated that the circuit court’s departure from the presumptive sentence of probation was warranted. View "State v. Underwood" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape in the first degree and two counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen years of age. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination to exclude statements regarding self-harm; (2) the circuit court erred in denying a judgment of acquittal on the two sexual contact counts; (3) the State offered sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (4) the circuit court did not impose a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. Remanded. View "State v. Bausch" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven drug-related offenses, six of which were felonies. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an aggregated sentence of forty-five years’ imprisonment and thirty days in the county jail. The court suspended all but six years and thirty days of the prison sentence and ordered that the jail sentence run concurrently. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal because there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions; and (2) Defendant’s sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Uhing" on Justia Law