Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of hunting on private land without permission from the owner, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 41-9-1, holding that, contrary to Defendant's assertion on appeal, the Legislature intended section 41-9-1 to be a strict liability offense.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration; (2) Defendant's argument that a mens rea should be read into section 41-9-1 was unavailing; and (3) Defendant's contention that the circuit court initiated an ex parte communication was not supported by the record, and Defendant received a fair and impartial trial. View "State v. Fideler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this divorce action, holding that there was error in the division of the parties' marital property and in the spousal support award.After seventeen years of marriage Husband commenced a divorce against Wife. Wife filed a counterclaim seeking separate maintenance and requesting that the divorce be postponed until she began eligible to receive lifetime TRICARE health care coverage. The trial court granted made an equitable division of marital property, granted Wife a decree of separate maintenance, and awarded her permanent alimony. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the entry of a divorce decree until after twenty years of marriage and by granting a decree of separate maintenance; (2) the circuit court lacked the authority to enter an equitable division of the marital property in the separate maintenance proceeding; and (3) on remand, the circuit court should consider the question of spousal support in light of the property division. View "Lefors v. Lefors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying the motion for partial summary judgment brought by the Estate of Robert T. Lynch as to its action against Kevin Lynch and entering judgment as a matter of law for Kevin on his counterclaim for conversion, holding that remand was required.The Estate sued Kevin alleging claims for fiduciary fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and elder exploitation. Kevin filed a counterclaim alleging conversion, among other claims. After the circuit court denied the Estate's motion for partial summary judgment on its claims against Kevin the court entered judgment as a matter of law for Kevin on his counterclaim. The Supreme Court (1) reversed as to the Estate's claims involving two payable-on-death CDs Kevin deposited in his individual account and directed that, on remand, the circuit court shall enter judgment as a matter of law for compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest on the Estate’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion; (2) ruled that the Estate's claim for punitive damage on the reversed portion of the judgment was an open question on remand; and (3) otherwise affirmed. View "Estate of Lynch v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court suppressing statements made by Defendant during the execution of a search warrant, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Defendant's statements to a law enforcement officer during the execution of a search warrant were involuntarily made.Defendant was indicted for one count each of rape in the third degree and sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement, arguing that his statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996). The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that Defendant's statements were involuntarily made under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on a review of the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court erred in concluding that Defendant's statements to law enforcement were involuntarily made. View "State v. Ghebre" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the administrative and circuit court decisions ordering Appellant to repay $14,080 in Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits that Appellant had received under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), holding that the circuit court erred.After Congress passed the CARES Act creating a temporary, state-administered PUA benefits program for unemployed individuals, Appellant, a self-employed individual who owned a small bed and breakfast, applied for PUA benefits after becoming unemployed "as a result of COVID-19[.]" The Department of Labor and Regulation, Reemployment Assistance Division determined Appellant was eligible for PUA benefits and issued a series of payments totaling $14,080. Later, however, the Department determined that Appellant was not eligible for benefits because she was "not considered unemployed" under any of the bases listed in the CARES Act. The Department then ordered Appellant to repay the PUA benefits. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ALJ erred in applying the causation standard in the Self-Employment Rule and further erred in concluding that Appellant was ineligible for PUA benefits. View "Bracken v. Dep't of Labor & Regulation, Reemployment Assistance Division" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Deadwood Historic District Commission to deny a certificate of appropriateness sought by Harlan Kirwan to conduct renovations on a building he owned that was located in the Historic District, holding that there was no error.Kirwan, who owned a saloon located in the Historic District, applied for a certificate of appropriateness from the Commission after renovating the saloon's facade. The Commission denied the application and ordered Kirwan to remove the facade. Kirwan subsequently applied for a new certificate of appropriateness to cover the existing facade. The Commission denied the permit, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the underlying decision. View "Kirwan v. City Of Deadwood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree burglary, aggravated assault, and grand theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not commit plain error by allowing a police officer to testify that Defendant invoked his right to an attorney; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal concerning the aggravated assault charge; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal concerning his aggravated assault and first-degree burglary charges. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court's preliminary ruling that Appellant could provide testimony from an expert witness on the capacity of a ten-year-old alleged third-party perpetrator to have killed Appellant's daughter, A.H., holding that the circuit court abused its discretion.Appellant was arrested and charged by complaint with second-degree murder in connection with the death of her three-year-old daughter A.H. Appellant's theory at trial was that a ten-year-old boy inflicted the injuries upon A.H. that caused her death. At issue was the circuit court's grant of Appellant's motion to offer third-party perpetrator evidence at trial. The circuit court denied Appellant's request to admit direct evidence of the boy's other acts but allowed admission of the opinion testimony at issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erroneously applied Rule 404(a) and (b) and Rule 703 in allowing the admission of the proffered expert testimony. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

In a previous decision involving a reporter’s request for information concerning an investigation involving Sanford, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that SDCL 23A-35-4.1 permits a circuit court to “seal the contents of an affidavit in support of a search warrant upon a showing of reasonable cause, but only until the investigation is terminated or an indictment or information is filed.” The court may not prohibit the public disclosure of other specific records nor of the fact that a search warrant affidavit has been filed.” Certain personally identifying information within court records must be redacted as a matter of course.Following the completion of the state’s criminal investigation, the circuit court unsealed the search warrant affidavits related to the investigation. Sanford challenged the denial of his request to inspect and participate in redacting the affidavits before the records were unsealed. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The circuit court properly applied the provisions of SDCL 15-15A-13 and 23A-35-4.1 and thoroughly considered the statutory and constitutional grounds asserted by Sanford with respect to information that could conceivably be contained in the affidavits. The court appropriately exercised its discretion to “decide whether there [were] sufficient grounds to prohibit access” to the contents of the affidavits. View "Matter Of Implicated Individual" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's judgment granting specific performance to the Estate of Gordon Campbell in this property dispute, holding that the circuit court erred by determining that there were not material facts in dispute regarding one claim.After Campbell died, his Estate sought to withdraw property contributed by him from Redwater Grazing Association, of which Campbell and John Nelson were founding members. Before the Estate attempted withdraw the property it tried sell it by soliciting bids from Nelson and Jared Capp. The Estate accepted Capp's offer and sought the deed for the property from Redwater so it could convey the property to Capp. Redwater refused to provide the deed. Nelson and Redwater then filed various claims against the Estate and Capp. The circuit court granted specific performance to the Estate and dismissed the remaining claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it granted specific performance directing Redwater to deliver the deed for the property to the Estate; (2) did not err in failing to find a valid contract for the sale of the property between Nelson and the Estate; and (3) erred by granting summary judgment to Capp on Nelson's action for claim and delivery of personal property. View "Nelson v. Estate of Campbell" on Justia Law