Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shanna Starkey was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The stop was based on the officer's perception that Starkey was attempting to evade the police. Starkey was ultimately arrested for driving under the influence. The circuit court suppressed the evidence, concluding that the officer lacked the reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in failing to consider that conduct designed to evade contact with the police may establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory detention; and (2), under the totality of the circumstances in this case, Starkey's evasive driving provided reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Remanded. View "State v. Starkey " on Justia Law

Former county deputy sheriff Buckly McColl entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to one count of third-degree rape. In exchange, the State dismissed other charges and agreed not to release an analysis of McColl's use of the sheriff's department's computers. More than one year after McColl was sentenced, he moved to withdraw his plea, asserting that the State violated the plea agreement by "leaking" the computer analysis. The circuit court denied the motion. McColl moved for reconsideration and a hearing to present witnesses who would testify they heard information about the computer analysis. The circuit court also denied that motion. McColl appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in not allowing a hearing to present evidence that the State breached the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because McColl failed to allege specific facts, which, if true, would entitle him to withdraw his plea, the circuit court was not required to hold a hearing to determine if the plea agreement had been breached. View "State v. McColl" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Litschewski was convicted by a jury of three separate offenses. The circuit court ordered that the sentence for count two was to run consecutive to the sentence for count one, and the sentence for count three was to run consecutive to counts one and two. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to vacate or modify an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the circuit court imposed consecutive sentences in an order that was inconsistent with the chronological order in which his crimes occurred. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the version of S.D. Codified Laws 22-6-6.1 that was in effect when Appellant was sentenced, the circuit court lacked the authority to order Appellant's sentence for count two, which occurred first in time, to run consecutive to count one. Remanded. View "State v. Litschewski" on Justia Law

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 received workers' compensation benefits for a neck and back injury he suffered in 2002 while working for Employer. After his benefits were discontinued in 2004, Employee sought treatment for a low back condition and petitioned the Department of Labor for workers' compensation benefits. The Department denied the petition, ruling that Employee did not prove his low back condition was related to his original 2002 work injury. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department correctly denied workers' compensation benefits where Employee failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 2002 injury was a major contributing cause of his current low back condition. View "McQuay v. Fischer Furniture" on Justia Law

Ethanuel Holznagel and John Cutsinger were involved in a car accident, and Holznagel died from injuries sustained in the accident. Holznagel's parents (Plaintiffs), the representatives of his estate, brought a wrongful death action against Cutsinger and his employer (Defendants). A jury trial was held and a verdict was returned for Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of Defendants' motion in limine excluding evidence of Cutsinger's marijuana use. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and granting Defendants' motion in limine. View "Estate of Holznagel v. Cutsinger" on Justia Law

Former students of a parochial school brought an action against the Congregation of the Priests of the Scared Heart, Inc. (PSHI) and other defendants, asserting claims of childhood sexual abuse. PSHI filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the former students failed to timely serve process on PSHI. The circuit court denied PSHI's motion to dismiss, finding (1) the former students substantially complied with the applicable service-of-process statute, and (2) service of process on PSHI was valid under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-31. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the former students timely served PSHI in accordance with South Dakota law, and the circuit court did not err in denying PSHI's motion to dismiss. View "R.B.O. v. The Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, Inc." on Justia Law

Former students of a parochial school brought an action against the Priests of the Sacred Heart (PSH) and other defendants, asserting claims of childhood sexual abuse. PSH filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the former students failed to timely serve process on PSH. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, finding (1) the former students substantially complied with the applicable service-of-process statute, and (2) service of process on PSH was valid under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-31. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying PSH's motion to dismiss because Plaintiffs failed to direct service to PSH and therefore failed to substantially comply with South Dakota's statutory notice requirements. View "R.B.O. v. Priests of the Sacred Heart" on Justia Law

Border States Paving was awarded the prime contract by the state DOT for a road project. Border States entered into a subcontract with Morris, Inc. for aggregates and work on the project. During work on the project, the DOT orally informed Morris that certain materials passed the soundness test. However, the materials actually failed. Ultimately, the paving was not completed by the seasonal deadline. When the project was completed the next year, the DOT paid Border States in full. Border States withheld several thousand dollars from Morris for costs associated with the project because it believed Morris defaulted in its contractual obligations under the subcontract. Morris brought suit against the DOT, alleging that the DOT breached its express and implied contractual obligations owed to Morris and that the DOT breached its implied contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing. The circuit court ruled in favor of Morris and awarded Morris damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the DOT's erroneous pass report proximately damaged Morris where there was no evidence in the record that this error alone caused the project to not get completed by the deadline. View "Morris, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff ranchers sued the State because of ongoing damage to their property from incursions of prairie dogs from public lands. Relying on multiple statutes requiring the State to manage and control prairie dog populations, Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, abatement, and damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered a trial on damages. When the case was reassigned, the State moved the new judge to reexamine the first judge's ruling. On reconsideration, the court vacated the first summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the second circuit court judge did not err in granting summary judgment for the State where the acts mandated by the statutes cited by Plaintiffs were discretionary and the State was protected from suit by sovereign immunity. View "Adrian v. Vonk" on Justia Law