Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Certain remainder beneficiaries of the Florence Y. Wallbaum Revocable Living Trust petitioned the trial court to interpret the terms of the trust and to determine whether the trustee breached its fiduciary duties. The trial court (1) found the Trust was ambiguous; (2) after considering extrinsic evidence, found that the settler of the trust, Florence Wallbaum, intended for the trustee to use trust principal to maintain the Wallbaum residence; and (3) ruled the trustee did not breach its fiduciary duties in administering the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding (1) the Trust was ambiguous; (2) Florence intended Trust principal to be used to maintain the Wallbaum residence; and (3) the trustee did not violate any fiduciary duties. View "In re Wallbaum Living Trust" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jeremy Zephier was convicted of aggravated assault for attacking a man who entered the apartment in which Zephier was drinking alcohol with acquaintances. Zephier appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Zephier's proposed instruction regarding when it is lawful to use force in preventing a trespass and instead giving a pattern jury instruction, as Zephier's proposed instruction misstated the law; and (2) denying Zephier's motion for a new trial, as Zephier's trial counsel did not commit misconduct and Zephier did not prove all the necessary factors to warrant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. View "State v. Zephier" on Justia Law

Garry Rosen pleaded guilty to kidnapping. Rosen subsequently petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his plea was involuntary because the sentencing court (1) failed to advise him that he would waive his Boykin v. Alabama rights by pleading guilty, and (2) failed to determine whether Rosen understood he was waiving those rights. The heabeas court denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed, as (1) Rosen was never advised that by pleading guilty he would waive his right to a trial by jury, he would waive his right to compulsory process, and he would waive his right against self-incrimination; and (2) Rosen was never asked whether he understood he would be waiving those rights. Remanded. View "Rosen v. Weber" on Justia Law

After Father and Mother separated, Mother left the couple's three children with Father's mother (Grandmother). Grandmother later petitioned for guardianship of the children. The petition was granted in 2008. The Supreme Court reversed the order in 2010, and Mother received primary physical custody of the children. Father subsequently filed a petition for custody of the children, which the circuit court granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) considering evidence of Mother's conduct before the 2008 guardianship trial, as res judicata did not bar consideration of the information in the circuit court's determination of Mother's fitness; and (2) concluding that Father rebutted the presumption that he should not receive custody, where the court's findings and conclusions overwhelmingly indicated that it was in the children's best interests that primary physical custody be awarded to Father. View "Nemec v. Goeman" on Justia Law

This was the fourth appeal in connection with the estate of Walter Brownlee, Sr. After Brownlee died and his will was probated, a dispute arose between Jeanie Weekley, Brownlee's longtime companion, and Brownlee's children regarding certain aspects of the will and the trust Brownlee had created. Weekley sued, and later, following Brownlee II, Weekley brought suit against Robert Wagner, Brownlee's personal representative, for breach of his fiduciary duties in administering the estate. The circuit court found that Wagner's failure to inspect, collect and manage certain construction equipment was breach of his fiduciary duty. On remand, the court awarded Weekley damages against Wagner for a total judgment amount of $139,834. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's damages award was not clearly erroneous. View "Weekley v. Wagner" on Justia Law

Petitioner Misty Jo Oliver asked the trial court to expunge her record of two misdemeanor convictions pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 23A-3-26 through 23A-3-33 (collectively, the expungement statutes). The trial court granted her request. The State appealed on the grounds that under both the expungement statutes and the state Constitution the trial court was without jurisdiction to expunge records of Oliver's convictions. After analyzing the statutes and the legislative history, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislature did not intend for the expungement statutes to apply to convictions, and therefore, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by expunging the records of Oliver's convictions. View "State v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Loren Pourier, the owner of a corporation that operated a gas station on reservation land, brought an action against the state Department of Revenue and Regulation to protest a state motor-fuel tax imposed on the corporation. The Supreme Court held that the fuel tax was illegal in Pourier I. Pourier then filed a motion for costs and attorneys' fees. The circuit court granted the motion. The Department appealed, contending that the position it took in Pourier I was "substantially justified" under S.D. Codified Laws 10-59-34. The Supreme Court reversed after undertaking a three-pronged analysis, holding that the circuit court erred in finding the position the Department took in the Pourier litigation was not substantially justified and thus ordering the Department to pay Pourier's costs and attorneys' fees. View "Pourier v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue & Regulation" on Justia Law

Patrick Kendall suffered a work-related injury while working at John Morrell and Company, a self-insured employer. Morrell initially accepted Kendall's workers' compensation claim, but because Kendall later missed a number of physical therapy and doctor's appointments, Morrell later denied all further benefits relating to the injury. Almost three years later, Kendall filed a petition with the state Department of Labor requesting additional benefits for the injury. The Department granted summary judgment in favor of Morrell, concluding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all of Kendall's claims for benefits were procedurally barred by the statute of limitations in S.D. Codified Laws 62-7-35. View "Kendall v. John Morrell & Co." on Justia Law

Stacy Brant pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary. As part of his sentencing, the court ordered that Brant provide a full and honest debrief as to the incident. The state Board of Pardons and Paroles later determined that Brant had violated the terms of his sentence by failing to comply with the court order to honestly debrief the incident and issued an order that partially revoked his suspended sentence. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. Brant appealed, contending that he was not given a fair warning that a failure to honestly debrief would result in the loss of his suspended sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Brant received a prior fair warning that failing to give an honest debrief could result in a revocation of his suspended sentence; and (2) the circuit court and Board did not clearly err in finding that Brant had violated a condition of his suspended sentence. View "Brant v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles" on Justia Law

John Willey was arrested for three DUIs: in 2008, May 2010 and August 8, 2010. Willey pleaded guilty to charges for his May 2010 arrest on August 30, 2010 and was convicted on September 27, 2010. For Willey's August 8, 2010 arrest, the State filed a Part II information that alleged Willey had two prior DUI convictions. Willey argued that the conviction on September 27, 2010 was invalid for enhancement purposes. The circuit court denied the motion. After a stipulated court trial, Wiley was convicted of DUI based on the August 8, 2010 arrest. The next day, a jury convicted him on the Part II information, finding that he had two prior DUI convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 22-6-5.2, (1) the Part II information in this case constituted an enhanced penalty, and (2) Willey could not receive an enhanced penalty for a third offense DUI because he had not been convicted or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to the second offense previous in time to committing the third subsequent offense. Remanded. View "State v. Willey" on Justia Law