Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated Defendant's conviction of multiple offenses relating to the assault of his ex-wife and his later efforts to get the pending charges dismissed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of engaging in threatening or harassing contact, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 49-31-31(1).After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts, including two counts of aggravated assault and threatening or harassing contact. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by not granting Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal on the charges of aggravated assault in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-1.1(1) and S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-1.1(5); but (2) there was insufficient evidence presented to the jury to support a finding of guilt on the charge of engaging in threatening or harassing contact in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 49-31-31(1). View "State v. Peneaux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court reversing the order of the Department of Public Safety disqualifying Russell Stanley's commercial driver's license (CDL) privileges, holding that the circuit court properly reversed the Department's disqualification of Stanley's CDL.The Department disqualified Stanley's CDL privileges for one year for the reason of a "felony committed while operating a motor vehicle." Stanley requested an administrative hearing. After a hearing, the hearing officer determined that the disqualification of Stanley's CDL was required under S.D. Codified Laws 32-12A-36(4). The Department adopted the proposed decision in full. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the offense that Stanley committed leading to the disqualification of his CDL privileges was not subject to mandatory CDL disqualification within section 32-12A-36(4). View "Stanley v. Dep't of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs in this tort action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which Beverly Winkler sustained fatal injuries and awarding damages to Plaintiffs after a bench trial, holding that the damages award must be recalculated.Plaintiffs sued Defendant, the personal representative of Beverly's estate, for negligence. The circuit court concluded that Beverly was negligent per se upon partial summary judgment, and the parties proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of damages. The circuit court awarded judgment to Plaintiffs and awarded a total of $36,499. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court erred by not assessing monetary relief for the cost of replacing a battery to Plaintiffs' tractor, which was damaged in the accident. View "Lamb v. Winkler" on Justia Law

In this workers' compensation case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Employee's appeal of the decision of the the administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissing Employee's petition claiming entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, holding that the circuit court correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Employee petitioned the Department of Labor for a hearing on his claim that he was entitled to additional workers' compensation benefits. When Employee did not disclose and identify his experts by the date set in the scheduling order, Employer/Insurer moved for summary judgment. The ALJ granted the motion, concluding that Employee did not create a genuine issue of material fact in dispute precluding summary judgment. View "Hussein v. Showplace Wood Products Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting the petition filed by the administrator of the Human Services Center (HSC) to administer psychotropic medication to B.T. without his consent, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting the petition.Pursuant to an emergency commitment, B.T. was admitted to the HSC after reports that he was exhibiting delusional behavior connected to his fervent religious views. B.T. was later involuntarily committed. At issue was a separate proceeding in which the HSC's administrator sought an order to administer psychotropic medical to B.T. without his consent. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the petition, allowing the HSC to administer psychotropic medication to the victim for up to one year subject to conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly applied the law, and its factual determinations were based upon competent and unrequited evidence. View "Johnson v. B.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's misdemeanor conviction for intentional damage to property following a court trial, holding that the circuit court erred by accepting the argument of the prosecutor that intentional damage to property is a strict liability offense for which a defendant who caused damage is necessarily guilty.Defendant was charged with intentional damage to property as a Class 1 misdemeanor for striking the windshield of a vehicle with her hand held in a fist, cracking it. During trial, Defendant argued that she could not be guilty because she did not intend to crack the windshield. The circuit court found Defendant guilty, aligning its rationale with the State's strict liability theory. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that intentional damage to property, as described S.D. Codified Laws 22-34-1, requires the State to prove that the Defendant acted with the specific intent to cause damage to the subject property. View "State v. Vandyke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment concluding that Plains Commerce Bank could not foreclose on certain trust real estate, that the trustee's mortgage on trust real estate was void and unenforceable, and that Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees, holding that the attorney fee award was an abuse of discretion.Garry and Betty Beck treated an irrevocable spendthrift trust naming their three children as secondary beneficiaries. Their child Matthew Beck took out a substantial personal loan with Plains Commerce and granted a mortgage to the bank on trust real estate as partial collateral. When Matthew defaulted on the loan, Plains Commerce brought a foreclosure action against Matthew in his capacity as trustee. Jamie Moeckly intervened on behalf of the trust. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Jamie and further granted her motion for attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in awarding attorney fees to Jamie as intervenor for the trust; and (2) because there was no mortgage foreclosure the statutory provision in S.D. Codified Laws 15-17-38 authorizing attorney fees "on foreclosure" did not apply. View "Plains Commerce Bank, Inc. v. Beck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of rape and sexual contact with a minor and sentenced to two consecutive sixty-year terms of imprisonment on the rape convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the two rape charges; (2) the submission of the sexual contact charges to the jury did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy; (3) there was no improper bolstering of witnesses at trial by either the circuit court or the prosecution; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; (5) Defendant's sentence neither violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, nor did it constitute an abuse of discretion; and (6) no other prejudicial error occurred. View "State v. Manning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of nine counts of third-degree rape involving J.C., holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.During the trial, the circuit court rejected the legal basis of Defendant's defense theory that J.C. gave "advance consent" to to sexual penetration before she passed out and became incapable of of giving contemporaneous consent. The circuit court rejected the legal basis of the defense and consequently excluded evidence that J.C. gave advance consent. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) there was no error in the circuit court's decision regarding the advance consent theory and the court's exclusion of the relevant evidence; (2) the circuit court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on a definition of intoxication; and (3) this Court declines to address Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct review. View "State v. Malcolm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated a portion of the judgment and decree of divorce entered by the circuit court in this case, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in determining Daniel Parker's military "monthly pay base" to be $1,500.94.Daniel filed for divorce from Camille Parker, citing irreconcilable differences. In dispute during the underlying proceedings was the correct amount of Daniel's "monthly basic pay" for the purpose of determining the equitable division of his retirement benefits. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the court's decree dividing Daniel's military retirement but otherwise affirmed, holding that the record revealed a legal error in the application of federal law to determine Daniel's monthly pay base. View "Parker v. Parker" on Justia Law