Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was attacked during a drug transaction. Defendant used lethal force against one of the perpetrators with an illegal shotgun. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, possession of a controlled weapon, and distribution of a controlled substance to a minor. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on a reduced mens rea of recklessness of the charge of first-degree manslaughter or in permitting jury instructions that emphasized the illegality of the firearm; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s proposed jury instructions; (3) did not fail to properly instruct the jury as to the alleged felonies being committed upon Defendant; and (4) did not abuse its discretion by admitting other-act evidence. However, because there was no way to determine if a Brady violation occurred with regard to certain evidence that was not within the record, the case was remanded for the circuit court to include the evidence within the record and to reconsider the Brady issue as to that evidence. View "State v. Birdshead" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Defendant was entitled to presumptive probation unless the court found aggravating circumstances “that pose a significant risk to the public.” In imposing sentence, the court concluded that three aggravated circumstances overcame presumptive probation and sentenced Defendant to thirty-six months in prison with eighteen months suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the aggravating circumstances demonstrated that placing Defendant on probation would have posed a significant risk to the public, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in departing from presumptive probation; and (2) the trial court erred in not restating the aggravating circumstance in the judgment, but this clerical failure may be corrected on remand to include the omitted material in the judgment. View "State v. Beckwith" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree rape and was sentenced to seventy years’ imprisonment. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Approximately five years later, Defendant filed a petition for habeas relief arguing, among other things, that his guilty plea was unconstitutional because the sentencing court did not properly advise him of his right against self-incrimination or that a guilty plea would waive that right. The habeas court denied relief, finding that Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the habeas court did not err in concluding that Defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea. View "Oleson v. Young" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted fetal homicide. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was improperly convicted of the crime of attempted fetal homicide because the jury did not have to find that he had the specific intent to cause the death of the unborn child, which is an element the State had the burden to prove; (2) Defendant’s spousal privilege and right to confrontation was violated by the circuit court’s admission of a taped conversation between him and his wife; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other act evidence under S.D. Codified Laws 19-19-404(b). View "State v. Vargas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary. Defendant attempted to appeal the original judgment, but his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal within the time provided by statute. Defendant was later resentenced. Defendant sought to appeal based on the amended judgment, arguing that the circuit court accepted his guilty plea to burglary without establishing a factual basis. The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the grounds that no appeal of right existed from the judgment sought to be appealed. Noting that the circuit court did not make certain determinations before proceeding under S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27-51, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the circuit court to make findings or hold further proceedings on whether a constitutional violation occurred, whether the relief was requested within a reasonable time, or whether an adequate record was available for review. View "State v. Pentecost" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled drug or substance with intent to distribute and committing or attempting to commit a felony with a firearm. In 2012, Appellant signed a suspended sentence supervision agreement. The next year, the Board of Pardons and Paroles revoked Appellant’s suspended sentence for failing to maintain a good disciplinary record. The circuit court affirmed the revocation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board acted within its authority by imposing the conditions of the agreement and revoking Appellant’s suspended sentence upon Appellant’s violation of the suspended sentence supervision agreement. View "Kelley v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles" on Justia Law

Defendant and several others in a group were stopped by South Dakota State University (SDSU) police officers on suspicion of underage consumption and for violating South Dakota’s open container law. Defendant was later convicted of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence stemming from the stop because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make the stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the SDSU police officers had an individualized, objective, and reasonable basis to believe that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity, and therefore, Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the stop. View "State v. Meyer" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to distribution of a schedule I or II substance and possession of a controlled substance. On the possession charge, the circuit court departed from presumptive probation and imposed a sentence of four years in the penitentiary, with two years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that her sentence for a term of imprisonment violated her constitutional right to a jury trial because the court departed from presumptive probation based on facts that were neither found by a jury nor submitted by Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing court appropriately sentenced Defendant. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree rape and sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements that Defendant claimed were given in violation of Miranda, as Defendant was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda at the time he gave the statements; and (2) when it denied Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "State v. Deal" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault. Defendant was sentenced to twenty years with ten years suspended for aggravated assault and two years for simple assault, to run concurrently. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, contending that his sentence was ambiguous or internally contradictory. The circuit court denied the motion after noting that the oral sentence controlled over the written judgment, concluding that the oral sentence was neither internally inconsistent nor ambiguous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the oral pronouncement of Defendant’s sentence was neither ambiguous nor internally contradictory, and therefore, the sentence was not illegal. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law