Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Office of Hearing Examiners (OHE) reviewing the decision of the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation Division of Insurance (DOI) relating to captive insurance companies domiciled in South Dakota, holding that there was no error.Appellant requested information from the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation Division of Insurance (DOI) relating to captive insurance companies domiciled in the state of South Dakota. The DOI denied the request, explaining that the information was confidential. The OHE upheld the decision, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court and the OHE properly determined that certificates of authority for captive insurance companies may not be disclosed under S.D. Codified Laws 58-46-31. View "Schupp v. Division of Insurance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted first-degree murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and commission of a felony while armed with a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted. After a habitual offender trial, the jury found that Defendant had five prior felony convictions and ordered him to serve twenty-five years for attempted first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that applying the correct standard leads to the conclusion that sufficient evidence supported the circuit court's decision to deny Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. At The Straight" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the claims brought by the Estate of Owen Thacker against Victoria Timm, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The parties in this case were involved romantically, lived with each each other, and owned property as joint tenants. After Plaintiffs were appointed co-guardians and co-conservators of Thacker they filed this suit on behalf of Thacker against Timm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and undue influence. The Estate was substituted as Plaintiff and added a claim for breach of duty as trustee of implied trust. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Timm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err. View "Estate of Thacker v. Timm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment accepting Plaintiff's adverse possession ownership claim and granting him an access easement under theories of prescriptive easement, easement by necessity, and an easement implied by prior use, holding that the circuit court's decision to grant an easement was not justified.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) erroneously applied the doctrine of acquiescence when it determined that Plaintiff and his predecessors in interest met the hostility requirement for adverse possession; and (2) erred when it granted Plaintiff a prescriptive easement allowing access to his land through the disputed property, and the access easement was also not authorized as an easement implied by prior use or necessity. View "Fuoss v. Dahlke Family Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the decision of the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation approving Claimant's request for benefits, holding that there was no error.Claimant injured her shoulder and necker while working for Employer. While Employer and Insurer initially paid Claimant benefits, her claim for surgery and additional benefits was subsequently denied. Claimant filed a petition seeking a hearing on her claims. Thereafter, the Department approved Claimant's request for benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Claimant's work injury was a major contributing cause of her impairment and need for treatment; and (2) there was no error in the Department's findings concerning medical opinion testimony or causation. View "News America Marketing v. Schoon" on Justia Law