Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation, Unemployment Insurance Division disqualified Plaintiff from unemployment insurance benefits based on Plaintiff's alleged failure, without good cause, to accept work she was capable of performing. After Plaintiff missed a telephonic hearing on her appeal, an ALJ entered an order of dismissal and denied Plaintiff's request to reopen for failure to show good cause. The circuit court affirmed, concluding that the Department did not err in refusing to reopen Plaintiff's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that Plaintiff did not provide evidence of untimely receipt of her notice of the hearing to carry her burden to show good cause, and therefore, Plaintiff received sufficient due process.View "Eiler v. Dep't of Labor & Regulation" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated grand theft by deception over $100,000 and sentenced to a term of twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal, failing to instruct the jury regarding the defense of advice of counsel, and instructing the jury that it should consider Defendant’s flight as it related to consciousness of guilt. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant obtained the “property of another” worth over $100,000, and consequently, the circuit court erred by not granting Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Thomason" on Justia Law

After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court terminated Father and Mother’s parental rights to their biological children, M.S., age two, and K.S., age one. Father’s and Mother’s history up until this time included rampant drug use and terms of incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother’s efforts futile in the face of the children’s need for permanency; and (2) good cause existed for terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father, as neither parent met their burden to prove the factual basis of the court’s application of S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-21.1 or 26-8A.26.1 was in error. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to fourth offense driving under the influence. During a sentencing hearing, the circuit court found the existence of aggravating circumstances and sentenced Defendant to five years in the state penitentiary with three years suspended. On appeal, Defendant argued that while the circuit court correctly acknowledged the applicability of S.D. Codified Laws 22-6-11 to his sentencing, it erred by failing to order probation. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the circuit court complied with the dictates of section 22-6-11 when it imposed a sentence other than probation. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Jonathan Quinn and his family were residential tenants of Barker & Little, Inc., when Quinn’s daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning, Quinn sued Barker & Little for the injuries his daughter sustained from the high concentrations of lead in the leased premises. Barker & Little tendered the claim to Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) and Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck). Farmers declined to defend Barker & Little under the applicable insurance policies. After a trial, the circuit court rendered judgment for Quinn. Quinn then asserted standing to bring all claims against Farmers and Truck that otherwise could have been brought by Barker & Little. Farmers and Truck moved for summary judgment on the basis of exclusions in the applicable policies. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that Farmers had no duty to defend or indemnify Barker & Little in the underlying action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded summary judgment in this case. View "Quinn v. Farmers Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

In 2012, a grand jury indicted Defendant for a DUI offense and for obstructing a public officer. A Part II Information was subsequently filed alleging that Defendant had been convicted of two prior DUI offenses. Defendant moved to dismiss the 2012 Part II Information, arguing that the prior convictions were invalid for enhancement purposes because the magistrate judges’ failure to strictly follow procedure resulted in the magistrate courts’ failure to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over the actions. The circuit court denied the motion. In 2013, Defendant pleaded guilty to driving or control of a motor vehicle while having .08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, as charged in the 2012 indictment. The circuit court denied Defendant’s request to be granted a suspended imposition of sentence, ruling that he was ineligible pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27-13. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Part II Information because the courts in Defendant’s predicate convictions assumed proper jurisdiction over the cases; and (2) the circuit court’s application of section 23A-27-13 did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary and obstructing a law enforcement officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) obstructing law enforcement is an appropriate predicate offense to support a charge of first-degree burglary; (2) the trial court did not err by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory strike, where Defendant failed to prove that the State’s use of its peremptory strike was racially motivated; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a letter written by Defendant to the victims of the burglary as hearsay evidence. View "State v. Hatchett" on Justia Law

Shannon Flowers filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court denied. More than thirty days after the circuit court’s denial, Flowers filed a motion for issuance of certificate of probable cause. In spite of the untimeliness of his motion, the circuit court granted Flowers’s motion and certified an issue for appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed Flowers’s appeal, holding (1) Flowers’s motion for issuance of certificate of probable cause was late, and therefore, jurisdictionally defective; and (2) because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, the Court also lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue certified on appeal. View "Flowers v. Weber" on Justia Law

Dora Gaaskjolen was an eighty-seven year-old widow who suffered from a traumatic head injury and other physical ailments. Dora’s grandson, Shane, an attorney, filed a petition for appointment of temporary conservator, and the circuit court ordered Dacotah Bank to be Dora’s temporary conservator. Shane subsequently moved for Dacotah to be Dora’s permanent conservator, but Dora moved to set aside the appointment of Dacotah as temporary conservator and, instead, nominated her daughter Audrey to be her conservator. Ultimately, the circuit court granted Shane’s motion for Dacotah to be Dora’s permanent conservator and denied Dora’s motion, finding that it was in the best interests of Dora that Dacotah be appointed as her conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s finding and conservator appointment had support in the record. View "In re Conservatorship of Gaaskjolen" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to simple assault under S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-1(4). The caption of the information included the words “domestic abuse,” but Defendant did not challenge whether the assault involved domestic abuse. Additionally, Defendant’s attorney acknowledged that Defendant was pleading guilty to simple assault (domestic abuse). Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that the charging information was insufficient and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty to simple assault (domestic abuse). The magistrate court denied the motion. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any argument Defendant had regarding defects in the information was waived because it was not raised prior to Defendant’s guilty plea; and (2) Defendant understood his rights, and his plea was knowing and voluntary. View "State v. Outka" on Justia Law