Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2014, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction of aggravated theft by deception, holding that the State failed to prove all the elements of the offense. The State subsequently brought new charges against Defendant for forgery and offering false or forged instruments for filing, registering, or recording in a public office. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, asserting that double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and res judicata barred the State’s subsequent prosecution because the State had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the newly-indicted charges during the first trial. Defendant further asserted that the indictment should be dismissed for improper venue. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and a jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of all charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the newly-indicted charges were separate and distinct from the charges dismissed in the first trial, the State was not precluded from retrying Defendant under double jeopardy and res judicata principles; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded that venue was proper on all charges. View "State v. Thomason" on Justia Law

In 2014, Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the circuit court revoked probation and imposed a sentence of two years incarceration (Sentence 1). That same year, Defendant received two additional sentences, each for unauthorized ingestion of a controlled drug or substance. On one of the convictions, the trial court sentenced Defendant to five years incarceration, suspended, and placed Defendant on probation (Sentence 2). On the final sentence, the court sentenced Defendant to four years incarceration (Sentence 3). The court ordered Sentence 3 to run consecutively to Sentence 1 and ordered Sentence 2 to run concurrently with Sentences 1 and 3. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s sentences improperly placed him under simultaneous supervision of the executive and judicial branches. Remanded. View "State v. Orr" on Justia Law

Defendant was searched pursuant to a search warrant with an “all persons” provision. Defendant was found in possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. Defendant was subsequently convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained a result of the search, arguing that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked probable cause for the “all persons” provision. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the affidavit adequately established probable cause for issuance of a warrant with the “all persons” provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers’ good-faith reliance on the warrant, specifically its “all persons” provision, was objectively reasonable, thereby making suppression an inappropriate remedy. View "State v. Running Shield" on Justia Law

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