Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and was later convicted and incarcerated for felony failure to appear arising from the driving under the influence conviction. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that counsel in his driving under the influence conviction failed to fully and correctly advise him regarding the constitutionality of the seizure of blood evidence. In support of his petition, Appellant cited Missouri v. McNeely, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided after Appellant’s arrest. In McNeely the Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigent circumstance justifying nonconsensual blood testing in all driving under the influence arrests. The habeas court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim but issued a certificate of probable cause regarding whether McNeely should be given retroactive effect in South Dakota. The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s ruling, holding that the new rule announced in McNeely was not a rule which warrants retroactive application to cases on habeas review. View "Siers v. Weber" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the first-degree rape of a nine-year-old girl. Prior to trial, the State moved to partially close the courtroom during the victim’s testimony to everyone but the parties, the media, and the State’s victim-witness assistant. The trial court ordered disclosure, and defense counsel did not object. On appeal, Defendant challenged the courtroom closure, alleging, inter alia, that the closure violated his right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel, rather than a defendant personally, may waive a defendant’s right to a public trial; and (2) the trial court did not commit plain error by closing the courtroom to the general public during the victim’s testimony. View "State v. Bauer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault for the death of his son. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the second degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, was sufficient to sustain a reasonable theory of guilt; and (2) did not err by allowing testimony of a witness who had conversed with Defendant in the county jail where the witness used a note to refresh his memory before he met with a law enforcement officer. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor and twelve counts of possessing, manufacturing, or distributing child pornography. During the trial the trial court closed the courtroom to members of the general public during the victim’s testimony. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly closed Defendant’s trial to the public without making sufficient findings regarding the closure. The Court remanded the case and instructed the court to enter supplemental findings regarding the closure. On remand, the trial court held a supplemental hearing and found that substantial reason existed for closing the courtroom. Defendant appealed, contending that remanding for supplemental findings was an inappropriate remedy. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the remedy ordered by the Court in Rolfe I was appropriate to cure the constitutional violation alleged; and (2) the trial court did not improperly close Defendant’s trial in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. View "State v. Rolfe" on Justia Law

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