Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Nicholas and Heather Wasilk, former spouses, share joint legal custody of their three minor children. Heather sought to take the children on vacation to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for their passport applications. Nicholas refused, leading Heather to file a motion for an order directing Nicholas to participate in the passport application process. The circuit court granted Heather’s motion. Nicholas appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked authority to resolve Heather’s motion, failed to properly weigh the best interests of the children, and infringed on his fundamental parental rights.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially adopted a custody arrangement where Heather had primary physical custody. In 2023, Nicholas sought to modify the custody agreement to include travel restrictions, proposing that the children not leave the continental United States without both parents' consent. The court adopted a modified agreement requiring 45 days' notice for international travel and a court hearing if either parent objected. Heather planned a trip to Mexico and requested Nicholas’s consent for passports, which he refused, citing safety concerns and the child’s medical conditions. The circuit court, after a hearing, ordered Nicholas to cooperate with the passport application process.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court had the authority to order Nicholas to participate in the passport application process under 22 C.F.R. § 51.28(c)(2). The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the trip was in the best interests of the children, considering the safety measures Heather planned and the benefits of the trip. The court also held that Nicholas’s fundamental parental rights were not infringed, as the best interests of the children standard applied in disputes between parents. View "Wasilk v. Wasilk" on Justia Law

Zachary C. Dietz pleaded guilty to two counts of counterfeiting lottery tickets in two separate cases. The circuit court imposed five-year suspended sentences on each conviction. Later, the State filed petitions to revoke Dietz’s suspended sentences for violating probation terms. Dietz admitted to the violations, and the court executed the entire five-year sentence on one conviction while leaving the other five-year sentence suspended. Dietz appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by not finding aggravating circumstances before revoking the suspended sentences. The State challenged the Supreme Court of South Dakota’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Lincoln County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Dietz was indicted for counterfeiting lottery tickets and pleaded guilty to both charges. The court imposed suspended sentences with probation. When Dietz violated probation terms, the State filed petitions to revoke the suspended sentences. Dietz admitted to the violations, and the court executed one of the five-year sentences while keeping the other suspended.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), which allows appeals from final orders in special proceedings. The court determined that probation revocation proceedings are special proceedings separate from the original criminal prosecution. The court also held that SDCL 22-6-11, which requires a finding of aggravating circumstances for certain sentences, applies only at the time of the original sentencing and not during probation revocation proceedings. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in revoking Dietz’s probation without finding aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision. View "State v. Dietz" on Justia Law

Maxton Pfeiffer shot and killed his friend Ty Scott while they were at their friend Cody Siemonsma’s apartment. Pfeiffer admitted to sweeping Siemonsma’s .45 caliber pistol in Scott’s direction and discharging it, believing it was unloaded after checking it. Pfeiffer was charged with first-degree manslaughter. He argued that the circuit court erred by not instructing the jury that the State had to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, by refusing a mistake of fact instruction, and challenged an evidentiary ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, held a seven-day trial. The jury found Pfeiffer guilty of first-degree manslaughter. Pfeiffer appealed, asserting errors in jury instructions, the exclusion of a deputy state’s attorney’s statement, and the sufficiency of the evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, correctly stated the law and adequately informed the jury of the State’s burden to prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a mistake of fact instruction, as the instructions given sufficiently allowed Pfeiffer to present his defense. Additionally, the court ruled that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the deputy state’s attorney’s statement, as it was minimally relevant and potentially confusing to the jury. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Pfeiffer’s conviction, as a rational jury could find that Pfeiffer acted recklessly. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Pfeiffer" on Justia Law

Matthew Fuller was convicted of possessing more than two ounces but less than one-half pound of marijuana, a felony, and was placed on supervised probation. After two subsequent arrests, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. The court appointed two attorneys for Fuller, both of whom withdrew. The court did not appoint a third attorney and conducted the revocation hearing with Fuller representing himself. Fuller was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced to a previously suspended two-year prison term.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Fuller was arrested following a traffic stop and charged with marijuana possession. He was released on bond and represented by multiple attorneys who withdrew. Fuller pled guilty to a lesser charge, and the court imposed a suspended sentence with probation. After his subsequent arrests, the court ordered him held without bond pending the revocation hearing. Fuller’s attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and the court did not appoint new counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that while Fuller was entitled to appointed counsel under state law, he did not demonstrate that the lack of counsel prejudiced the outcome of the revocation hearing. The court found sufficient evidence to support the probation violation, including Fuller’s use of methamphetamine. The court also rejected Fuller’s claims of judicial bias and due process violations, affirming the lower court’s decision to revoke his probation and execute the suspended sentence. View "State V. Fuller" on Justia Law

In October 2020, Cal SD, LLC purchased a property with a restrictive covenant that regulated property maintenance and improvements, including a prohibition on new construction within designated "no build" areas. The covenant allowed for a specific exception for a garden fence on Lot B, with strict size and location limitations. Tina Roberts, who gained control of Cal SD in April 2021, constructed a garden with a fence that included overhead trusses and hail netting, exceeding the permitted dimensions and height.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, reviewed the case after Spring Canyon Properties, LLC filed a complaint alleging that Roberts' garden structure violated the restrictive covenant. The court denied Roberts' motion for summary judgment and granted Spring Canyon's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the garden structure was a building rather than a fence and violated the covenant. The court ordered Roberts to remove the overhead components and comply with the covenant.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision that the garden structure violated the restrictive covenant, as the structure did not fit the plain and ordinary meaning of a "fence" and conflicted with the covenant's purposes. However, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court erred in imposing an eight-foot height restriction, as neither the covenant nor the county ordinance specified such a limit. The Supreme Court affirmed the order to bring the fence into compliance with the covenant but remanded to remove the height restriction. View "Spring Canyon Properties, LLC v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Mary Johnson entered into an oral agreement with her parents, Carl and Pearl Johnson, to obtain financing for constructing a small home on a parcel of land (Gertie Lode) they conveyed to her. In exchange, Mary and her family could live in their parents' larger home on a separate parcel (Spaniard Lode). Once the mortgage was satisfied, Mary was to transfer the Gertie Lode property equally to herself and her siblings. Despite satisfying the mortgage, Mary informed her siblings in 2008 that she would not convey the land to them.Greg Johnson, Mary's brother, sought to enforce the oral agreement and reform the deed from their parents to Mary. The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, granted Mary’s motion for summary judgment, determining that Greg’s breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that he was not entitled to reformation because he could not establish that the deed failed to reflect the parties’ intent. Greg appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Greg’s breach of contract claim accrued when he received Mary’s 2008 letter, which clearly indicated her intent to breach the oral agreement. Since Greg did not bring his claim until October 2018, it was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the court found no basis for reformation of the deed, as the oral agreement was never reduced to writing, and the warranty deed accurately reflected the intent of the parties. Therefore, summary judgment on both the breach of contract and reformation claims was appropriate. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Michael Waldner, Jr., and Mark Waldner, were indicted in Brule County, South Dakota, on charges of rape and sexual contact involving a minor, E.H. During the investigation, law enforcement obtained a journal written by E.H. detailing the alleged misconduct. The defendants sought additional journals and diaries written by E.H. through a subpoena duces tecum. E.H. moved to quash the subpoena, but the circuit court denied the motion and ordered an in-camera inspection of the journals. E.H. then filed a petition for an intermediate appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The circuit court initially granted the defendants' motion for further discovery, ordering the State to acquire the journals for an in-camera inspection. E.H. filed a motion to quash the subpoena, asserting her right to privacy under Marsy’s Law. The court vacated its initial discovery order but allowed the defendants to reissue the subpoena. E.H. again moved to quash, but the court denied her motion, leading to her appeal.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), as the circuit court’s order was a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding. The court concluded that E.H.’s right to privacy under Marsy’s Law is not absolute and must be balanced against the defendants’ constitutional rights. However, the court found that the circuit court erred by not applying the Nixon factors (relevancy, admissibility, and specificity) when denying E.H.’s motion to quash. The court reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State V. Waldner" on Justia Law

Arnson Absolu was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Ashley Nagy, Charles Red Willow, and Dakota Zaiser. The murders occurred in Rapid City, South Dakota, in August 2020. Nagy and Red Willow were found shot in a parked SUV, while Zaiser’s body was later discovered in a shallow grave near Sheridan Lake. Surveillance footage and witness testimonies linked Absolu to the crimes, including evidence of his involvement in the local drug trade and a substantial drug debt owed by Red Willow to Absolu.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, presided over the trial. After the trial, Absolu moved for a new trial, claiming that the State had failed to disclose information about a State witness, Shamar Bennett, who was involved in an unrelated infant-death investigation. Absolu argued that this non-disclosure violated his due process rights and the court’s pretrial discovery order. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that although the information should have been disclosed, its absence did not prejudice Absolu’s defense.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the undisclosed information about Bennett’s involvement in the infant-death investigation was not material to the outcome of the trial. The court noted that Bennett’s testimony was consistent with his grand jury testimony, which predated the infant-death incident, and that Absolu had already effectively impeached Bennett’s credibility during the trial. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the information been disclosed. View "State v. Absolu" on Justia Law

The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed an abuse and neglect petition concerning two minor children, N.K., Jr. and S.K., who are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The children were taken into emergency temporary custody after their father, N.K., Sr., was arrested for driving under the influence with the children in the car. The children were found to be homeless and in poor condition. The State filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect, and the father admitted to the allegations. Despite DSS providing various services, including substance abuse treatment and visitation arrangements, the father continued to struggle with substance abuse and was repeatedly incarcerated. The mother was largely absent and uncooperative.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Gregory County, South Dakota, handled the initial proceedings. The father was served with the petition at an advisory hearing, but no summons was issued or served. The case was transferred between counties due to the father's relocation. The father admitted to the allegations, and DSS provided ongoing services. Despite some progress, the father relapsed and was arrested again, leading to a failed trial reunification. The State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the court held a final dispositional hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the failure to issue or serve a summons did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the father had actual notice of the proceedings. The court also found that termination of parental rights was the least restrictive alternative, given the father's ongoing substance abuse issues and inability to provide a stable environment. Additionally, the court determined that DSS had made active efforts to reunite the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court affirmed the termination of both parents' parental rights. View "Interest Of N.K." on Justia Law

Danny Washington was convicted by a jury on multiple charges, including first-degree kidnapping, injury to personal property, and several counts of aggravated and simple assault. The charges stemmed from incidents involving his then-girlfriend, J.B., in October 2021. Washington allegedly assaulted J.B., damaged her vehicle, and forcibly confined her with a firearm, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment on eight counts.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, presided over the trial. Washington filed several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude references to his parole status and to prevent the use of the term "victim" in court. The court granted these motions but denied his request for a personal copy of the discovery. During the trial, the jury found Washington guilty on all counts. Washington later filed a motion for a new trial, citing ineffective assistance of counsel and other trial errors, which the court denied. He was sentenced to 100 years for kidnapping, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other charges.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. Washington argued ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence for the kidnapping conviction, cumulative trial errors, discrepancies between the oral and written sentences, and improper multiple convictions for aggravated assault. The court declined to address the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, noting the need for a more developed record. It found sufficient evidence to support the kidnapping conviction and determined that the alleged trial errors did not cumulatively deny Washington a fair trial. The court clarified that the written sentence, which suspended 60 years of the 100-year kidnapping sentence, controlled over any ambiguous oral pronouncements. Finally, the court held that entering multiple convictions for a single statutory offense arising from the same act violated double jeopardy principles, but found no plain error due to the lack of clear precedent. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law