Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After highway patrol troopers stopped a vehicle, in which Defendant was a passenger, for a traffic infraction, the trooper smelled marijuana on the driver and in the vehicle. Defendant then admitted to the presence of marijuana in the back of the vehicle. A trooper subsequently handcuffed Defendant, patted down his person, and found cocaine on Defendant’s person. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The circuit court suppressed the cocaine seized from Defendant’s person, concluding that the State failed to establish that the warrantless search of Defendant’s person was justified under any exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s person did not fall within the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement; but (2) the cocaine evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to simple assault and aggravated assault. For aggravated assault, Defendant was sentenced to a thirteen-year penitentiary sentence, suspended on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that Defendant consent to any treatment plan deemed necessary by his Court Services Officer (CSO). Defendant’s CSO told Defendant that he must undergo a sex offender evaluation. The circuit court later revoked Defendant’s suspended sentence for failure to obtain a sex offender evaluation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it unlawfully delegated its judicial authority to a CSO to create and impose a condition of probation for a sex offender evaluation and treatment. Accordingly, the court erred when it revoked Defendant’s suspended sentence. Remanded. View "State v. Blakney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of first degree rape, sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen, and aggravated incest based on allegations that Defendant had sexually abused his nine-year-old granddaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting testimony as to the victim’s brother’s statements; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Defendant to proceed pro se at sentencing; (3) Defendant’s sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (4) Defendant’s arguments that he received effective assistance of counsel at trial were not ripe for review on direct appeal. View "State v. Craig" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to eight years incarceration. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. At issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence establishing that Defendant exercised dominion or control over a video file containing child pornography when the State presented no direct evidence that Defendant possessed the video, but rather relied on circumstantial evidence to convict Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.View "State v. Riley" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Specifically, Defendant contended that police officers did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop or frisk him, and therefore, the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant was not subjected to an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore, the subsequently discovered evidence was admissible.View "State v. Mohr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several sex-related crimes, all involving one particular child victim. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by allowing a police detective's opinion on why defendants accused of sex offenses against children do not confess during interrogation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the child victim's statements made to a forensic interviewer; and (3) abused its discretion in allowing an expert witness for the State to give a medical diagnosis of "child sexual abuse."View "State v. Buchholtz" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged by information with driving under the influence (DUI). A supplemental information alleged that Appellant had been convicted of DUI in 2009. The State asserted that the prior DUI conviction enhanced the new charge to a second offense DUI. Appellant moved to strike the 2009 conviction on the grounds that it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. The circuit denied Appellant’s motion to strike her predicate conviction, ruling that Appellant did not overcome the presumption of regularity that attached to her 2009 guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Woodard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State’s peremptory strike of a Native American veniremember was racially motivated. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court had failed to address third step of the Batson v. Kentucky analysis and remanded with directions for the court to determine whether Defendant satisfied his burden to prove the State’s peremptory strike was racially motivated. On remand, the circuit court performed the third step and concluded that the State’s strike was not based on purposeful racial discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed after a de novo review, holding that Defendant failed to carry his burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

Joseph Burkett was arrested by Officer Justin Lux after the officer approached the Burkett’s vehicle, which was stopped in the middle of the road, and concluded that Burkett had been driving under the influence. A jury found Burkett guilty of DUI. Based on Burkett’s two prior DUI convictions within ten years of the current offense, Burkett was sentenced to a Class 6 felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court’s use of Burkett’s prior DUI convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes did not violate Burkett’s right to due process; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; and (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Burkett’s motion to suppress based on Officer's Lux’s stop of Burkett, as the officer's decision to stop Burkett was reasonable. View "State v. Burkett" on Justia Law

In 2002, Petitioner, an inmate serving a fifteen-year sentence, pleaded guilty to possession of an unauthorized article by an inmate. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging several constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to preserve Petitioner's right to appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court denied the petition based on prejudice to the State caused by Petitioner's failure to timely file his petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption of prejudice to the State in its ability to respond to the application due to Petitioner's failure to timely file the application.View "Davis v. Weber" on Justia Law