Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of open container and driving under the influence (DUI) and imposing a suspended imposition of sentence, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Based on information obtained during a 911 call made by Defendant's daughter reporting that Defendant may be drinking and driving and providing Defendant's location officers conducted a traffic stop of Defendant's van and then arrested her for DUI. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the traffic stop was an unconstitutional search and seizure. The circuit court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court properly concluded that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the stop. View "State v. Rosa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court on remand declaring that Lynn and Lisa Schock satisfied the conditions of Bonnie J. Pease's handwritten holographic will, holding that the circuit court did not err.After the Supreme Court held that the will in this case appointed the Schocks as the personal representatives and gave them Bonnie's entire estate subject to conditions, the circuit court, on remand, declared that the Schocks satisfied the will's conditions and approved the proposed final distribution of the estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the Schocks satisfied the conditions. View "In re Estate of Hubert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting Alice and Vernon Cook a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, holding that the circuit court's property award and alimony award were an abuse of discretion.The court below equitably divided the parties' marital property and ordered Vernon to pay Alice a cash payment that included $140,000 for marital assets that the court found Vernon had dissipated. The court further ordered Vernon to pay Alice permanent alimony in the monthly amount of $1,500. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court abused its discretion in classifying Vernon's monthly military retirement pay as marital property; (2) the circuit court erred in failing properly to apply federal law to the military disability pay Vernon received during the separation; and (3) because the circuit court's property division is reversed, vacatur of the alimony award and remand were required. View "Cook v. Cook" on Justia Law

In this action concerning a disputed agreement between between Kenneth and Rebecca Goens and Lynn VanSloten for the sale of an empty lot, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under S.D. Codified Laws 15-26A-3, holding that the underlying interlocutory judgment was not a final judgment under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-54(b) and was therefore not appealable.Kenneth delivered the purchase agreement at issue and VanSloten's earnest money check to FDT, LLC with the intention that FDT act as the closing agent for the property sale. When a dispute arose regarding the earnest money check and purchase agreement the Goenses filed a complaint against FDT and VanSloten. VanSloten asserted a counterclaim against the Goenses. The circuit court granted FDT's motion for summary judgment against the Goenses, but the order did not resolve the remaining claims or contain any certification under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-54(b). The Goenses appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because active claims remained in this action at the time of appeal and no Rule 54(b) certification was made, this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction under S.D. Codified Laws 15-26A-3. View "Goens v. FDT, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting Sally Johnson's request to supervise and reform a trust and denied Mindy Smith's petition seeking clarification from the court and requesting other relief, holding that the circuit court erred in denying certain attorney fees.After Fred Peterson died, his daughter Sally filed separate petitions seeking court supervision and reformation of one of the two trusts he created in his lifetime. Another daughter, Mindy opposed the reformation and requested other relief. After a trial, the circuit court granted Sally's petition to reform the trust at issue and denied all of Mindy's petitions and motions. Sally subsequently filed a motion for reimbursement of attorney fees and expenses, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case, holding (1) the circuit court was authorized to award Sally attorney fees under S.D. Codified Laws 15-17-38; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the litigation did not provide the trust with an economic benefit; and (3) attorney fees were authorized for Sally's efforts to vindicate her father's intent. View "In re Petersen Trusts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of third-degree rape, entered following a jury trial, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the conviction, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of third-degree rape and sentenced to ten years in prison with eight years suspended. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence did not prove beyond da reasonable doubt that actual penetration occurred, as required by S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-1(3). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict finding Defendant guilty of third-degree rape. View "State v. McDermott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree rape and sexual contact, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.After a second trial, a jury found Defendant guilty of sexually assaulting two of his children and one of his children's friends and sentenced him to life imprisonment on each of the three counts of first-degree rape and fifteen years on the sexual contact count, all to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) abused its discretion in excluding witness testimony offered in Defendant's case-in-chief, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) did not err in allowing the State to admit a trial transcript of Defendant's testimony from his first trial; (3) did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to admit other act evidence and expert testimony; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in ordering Defendant to pay certain costs of prosecution. View "State v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that J. Clancy, Inc. had performed under a contract for renovations of a Spearfish hotel and that Khan Comfort, LLC had breached the contract by failing timely to make payments, holding that there was no error.J. Clancy brought this action alleging claims for nonpayment under a series of implied-in-fact contracts. Following a trial, the circuit court awarded Khan a judgment against J. Clancy for overpayment. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the parties had entered into an express contract for the renovations. After a remand, the circuit court found that J. Clancy had fully performed under the terms of the contract and that Khan had breached the contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court's actions on remand were within the parameters of its decision-making authority; (2) the circuit court did not err in finding on remand that J. Clancy had fully performed; and (3) the record supported the court's findings of fact on damages. View "J. Clancy, Inc. v. Khan Comfort, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree rape, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-1(1), holding that the court did not err in denying Defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea.Defendant pled guilty to sexual penetration of a victim less than thirteen years of age. After a change of plea hearing but prior to sentencing, Defendant unsuccessfully filed a letter asking the circuit court to withdraw his guilty plea and requesting substitute counsel. After denying both requests the court sentenced Defendant to 100 years in prison with fifteen years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea; and (2) this Court declines to address Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct review. View "State v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of first-degree rape, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in the way it handled Defendant's arraignment or in its evidentiary rulings and that misconduct that occurred during the State's closing rebuttal argument did not constitute prejudicial error.On appeal, Defendant claimed that his arraignment violated his due process rights and S.D. Codified Laws 23A-7-1 and that the circuit court abused its discretion in several of its evidentiary rulings. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the challenged evidentiary rulings were without error and were not an abuse of discretion; and (2) while the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, it was improbable that the prosecutor's misconduct altered the jury's verdict. View "State v. Hankins" on Justia Law