Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kenneth Stark, a registered sex offender, was convicted of loitering in a community safety zone in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-24B-24. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the state statutes prohibiting sex offenders from loitering in community safety zones are constitutional; (2) the trial court did not err by allowing the State to amend the information to include the correct location of Stark's prior felony conviction; (3) there was sufficient evidence to establish that Stark's primary purpose for remaining in the community safety zones was to observe or contact minors; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that an individual in a white mini-van registered to Stark was seen in a community safety zone the day before the charged conduct occurred. View "State v. Stark" on Justia Law

Timothy Farmer, a patrol officer for the Rapid City Police Department, was investigated for excessive use of force relating to the apprehension of the alleged perpetrators of an assault. The Department later fired Farmer after finding, in addition to the most recent incident, Farmer had been the subject of several complaints for excessive force. The Department of Labor upheld the Police Department's decision. The circuit court affirmed, finding ample evidence to support the discharge. On appeal, Farmer contended that he never acted beyond the Department's use of force continuum policy. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Department of Labor and circuit court, holding that sufficient cause existed to discharge Farmer. View "Farmer v. City of Rapid City" on Justia Law

J.L. was fourteen when he engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with his twelve-year-old girlfriend. A juvenile petition was filed against J.L., and the circuit court adjudicated J.L. as a delinquent under S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-1(1), a statute under which the girlfriend was legally incapable of giving consent and under which J.L. would have been convicted of rape in the first degree had J.L. been an adult. On appeal, J.L. argued that the application of the statute to the facts of this case created an absurd result, one not reasonably intended by the legislature. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that application of the statute to the facts did not suggest an unintended absurdity. View "In re J.L. " on Justia Law

Defendant William Jensen was charged with fourth offense driving under the influence. He filed a motion to strike one of his three prior driving under the influence convictions, arguing that because the magistrate court relied on a statement of rights form to establish the voluntariness of his guilty plea during that prior hearing, that prior conviction was invalid for sentence enhancement purposes. The trial court denied Jensen's motion to strike, concluding that the statement of rights form was an adequate record of voluntariness. Jensen appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Jensen did not demonstrate prejudice, his challenge to his prior driving under the influence conviction was not proper for the Court's consideration; and (2) Jensen did not demonstrate that the magistrate court's failure to personally canvass him to establish the voluntariness of his plea violated his due process rights. View "State v. Jensen" on Justia Law

Defendant Ivan Good Plume was found guilty of aggravated assault and of being a habitual offender and was sentenced to eighteen years in prison. On appeal, defendant asserted (1) that the sentencing judge, in referring to a pattern of drunken violence by Good Plume as "going native," evinced his personal bias against defendant and used race as a sentencing factor, thus violating defendant's federal and state due process rights; and (2) the judge abused his discretion in admitting into evidence a letter defendant wrote without considering the requirements of S.D. R. Evid. 404(b) before admitting it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) defendant did not meet his burden of making a specific and substantial showing that a racial or personal bias was used as an aggravating factor in his sentence, and (2) the letter was admitted not to prove defendant engaged in other wrongs, crimes, or acts but as res gestae evidence necessary to prove intent. View "State v. Good Plume" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Roger Rodriguez filed an action for sexual abuse as a child against Brother Matthew Miles and John Donadio and the Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart for alleged abuse that occurred in the 1970's while plaintiff was a student at St. Joseph's Indian School. The defendants asserted that, based on plaintiff's deposition testimony, the statute of limitations for plaintiff's action barred plaintiff's claims because plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the childhood sexual abuse caused him injury more than three years before his lawsuit was filed. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that it was undisputed that plaintiff knew of the alleged abuse more than three years before he filed suit and that plaintiff was aware of enough facts to put him on inquiry notice more than three years before he filed suit. View "Rodriguez v. Miles" on Justia Law

Allen Kissner asked Robert Goulding to take Kissner's life with a gun. Goulding agreed and fatally shot Kissner. A jury found Goulding guilty of first degree murder. Goulding appealed, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that as a matter of law it was not suicide if a person other than the decedent performed the overt act resulting in the decedent's death; (2) the court erred in refusing defense instructions that would have supported an alternative assisted suicide conviction; and (3) the court erred in prohibiting Goulding from referring to the assisted suicide statute. After an analysis of the relevant statutes, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because a "killing by the accused" is not an element of assisted suicide, and because there is no dispute that Goulding committed the overt act that directly caused Kissner's death, Goulding could not have committed assisted suicide. View "State v. Goulding" on Justia Law

Petitioner James Lawrence appealed the circuit courtâs denial of his petition for habeas corpus, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and sentence for âtheft by deception.â In 1996, Petitioner approached the victim four times over the course of several months, offering to perform home repairs that he said would be reimbursed under a federal government program. By the end, Petitioner had received over $5,000 for his âwork.â Petitioner furnished invoices he claimed would be reimbursed and an âofficialâ called the victim to arrange to inspect the work Petitioner had done. When the inspector never showed, the victim called the local branch of the government agency to follow up, and learned that the alleged reimbursement had ended several years earlier. In 2003, a jury found Petitioner guilty of theft by deception and sentenced him to twenty-five yearsâ imprisonment at the state penitentiary. The appellate court affirmed his conviction. In 2006, Petitioner sought the writ of habeas corpus, alleging among other things, that his constitutional rights had been violated because he was convicted on insufficient evidence. The circuit court denied his motion, and Petitioner brought his appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that there was ample evidence from which the jury could draw its conclusion. The Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions to dismiss Petitionerâs appeals.