Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jason Larsen-Smith was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to life without parole. Appellant appealed, arguing that the sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant where (1) the sentence did not appear grossly disproportionate to the crime, (2) Appellant received a statutorily authorized sentence for his conviction, and (3) the circuit court properly acquired a thorough acquaintance with Appellant and imposed a sentence that took into consideration the safety of the public and Appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. View "State v. Larsen-Smith" on Justia Law

Employee was prosecuted for theft from his Employer, but he was acquitted by a jury. Employee later commenced an action for malicious prosecution against Employer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer, concluding (1) Employee did not establish legal causation between Employer's report of theft and the criminal prosecution, and (2) Employee failed to establish the absence of probable cause to prosecute. Employee appealed, arguing that although the decision to prosecute was made by the state's attorney and grand jury, his claim was actionable because Employer did not give full and correct information to the authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err where (1) Employer's report was not the legal cause of the prosecution, and (2) Employee identified no facts suggesting that the prosecution was based on such information and that but for such information the decision to prosecute would not have been made by the prosecutor. View "Danielson v. Hess" on Justia Law

When Rita Fix's son and daughter-in-law, Jeff and Marie, secured a loan from the First State Bank of Roscoe by obtaining a warranty deed for the property, the Bank assured Fix she could retain possession of the house. After Jeff and Marie conveyed the house and property to the Bank, the Bank sold the property and sought to remove Fix from the house. Fix sued the Bank for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Meanwhile, Fix, Jeff, and Marie were indicted on multiple criminal counts. The State attorney who brought the charges and who represented the Bank civilly offered to dismiss the criminal charges against Fix if she would deed the house back to the Bank. Fix then amended her complaint to include a claim of abuse of process against the Bank. The trial court granted summary judgment against Fix on her IIED claim. A jury then returned a verdict finding the Bank liable for abuse of process but awarded no damages to Fix. The Supreme Court reversed on the abuse of process claim, holding that the trial court provided the jury with the incorrect legal standard for the recovery of emotional damages. Remanded for a new trial. View "Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe" on Justia Law

Rylan Walth was convicted of one count of possession with intent to distribute and one count of simple possession of a controlled drug. Prior to trial, Walth filed a motion to suppress a statement he made to a police officer on the grounds that his Miranda rights were violated. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding (1) the statements Walth made to a detective prior to his arrest were not made while he was in custody because a reasonable person would have understood he or she was at liberty to terminate the interview and leave; and (2) therefore, there was no Miranda violation. View "State v. Walth" on Justia Law

Christopher Fisher was convicted of manslaughter following the death of a fifteen-month-old child. Fisher appealed, contending that the trial court erred in (1) failing to suppress incriminating statements Fisher made during an interview with law enforcement, (2) admitting a portion of a videotaped interrogation where Fisher was depicted shaking a doll with the image of the doll redacted; and (3) finding that one of the state's expert witnesses was qualified to testify about abusive head trauma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Fisher's confession during his interrogation was voluntary, and the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting the redacted video of Fisher shaking the doll as the evidence was insufficient to mislead the jury or unfairly prejudice Fisher; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert witness to testify because the evidence in the record supported the trial court's conclusion that the witness had sufficient knowledge, training or education to offer her opinion on the child's cause of death. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Lacy March sought a protection order against Roger Thursby, which the circuit court granted. The testimony elicited at trial concerned stalking. Thursby appealed, alleging, among other things, that the findings of fact were insufficient to support the order as signed. The Supreme Court reversed due to insufficiency of the findings of fact, holding the circuit court failed to insure that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly entered. Specifically, the Court found that although the circuit court indicated that it believed March's version of the events, the written finding did not correspond with the oral testimony of March, and the court did not indicate how the evidence met the statutory elements of stalking. View "March v. Thursby" on Justia Law

Lucas Waugh was charged with attempted rape of a woman and the rape of a minor. The incidents occurred one after the other within walking distance of each other. The circuit court joined the cases for trial, and a jury found Waugh guilty of both offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in joining the charges for trial because (i) the two incidents in this case were closely related in time, location, and manner of execution, and (ii) there was no undue prejudice because the evidence of each incident could have been admitted in the trial of the other; and (2) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to have found Waugh guilty of both offenses. View "State v. Waugh" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Jones was convicted of raping a twenty-three-year-old woman who testified that she was too intoxicated to have consented. The defendant appealed, asserting that although S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-1(4) does not explicitly include a knowledge element, the circuit court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that the State must prove that the defendant knew that the woman's intoxicated condition made her unable to consent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Legislature intended that a rape conviction under section 22-22-1(4) requires proof that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim's intoxicated condition rendered her incapable of consenting. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant Mil Hirning pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a controlled substance and admitted to being a habitual offender. Hirning made the plea after Hirning's trial counsel withdrew from representing him and Hirning proceeded pro se. On appeal, Hirning argued that his waiver of counsel was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The Supreme Court reversed Hirning's convictions and sentence, (1) finding that Hirning was not warned of the dangers of self-representation, and (2) holding that the record did not indicate circumstances from which the Court could find Hirning was aware of the danger and made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. Remanded. View "State v. Hirning" on Justia Law

Petitioner Dale Guthmiller was convicted of criminal pedophilia and sentenced to life in prison. Petitioner subsequently petitioned the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging, among other things, that the trial judge made improper comments during the trial, violating Petitioner's constitutional right to a fair trial. The habeas court granted Petitioner's writ on reconsideration, (1) concluding that the trial judge's comments created a structural error negating Petitioner's requirement to establish prejudice, and (2) retracting its earlier ruling that trial counsel's failure to object was not prejudicial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial judge's comments did not constitute a structural error, and (2) despite defense counsel's failure to object to the judge's improper remarks, Petitioner did not meet his burden of showing that the jury's verdict would reasonably likely have been different absent trial counsel's errors. View "Guthmiller v. Weber" on Justia Law