Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court dismissing Defendant's application for habeas corpus, holding that the court did not err.A jury convicted Defendant of fourteen sex offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that his due process right to jury unanimity was denied and that the prosecutor's remarks during opening statement denied him a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed an application for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on the errors he alleged on appeal. The habeas court dismissed the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was precluded from demonstrating prejudice for Strickland purposes in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding; and (2) the habeas court properly dismissed Defendant's amended application for a writ of habeas corpus on summary judgment. View "Neels v. Dooley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court dismissing Appellant's application for habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of one count of third-degree rape. On appeal, Defendant asserted that plain error occurred in the prosecutor's alleged vouching of the victim during closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed an application for habeas corpus relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based, in part, on trial counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's alleged misconduct. The habeas court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the habeas court properly dismissed Defendant's IAC claim related to the prosecutor's improper vouching was res judicata; and (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant's remaining IAC claim. View "Harris v. Fluke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the circuit court's grant of First National Bank's (FNB) motion for summary judgment regarding FNB's foreclosure and replevin claims against Justin and Sharmin Inghram and denying FNB's request to dismiss the Inghrams' counterclaim for fraud, holding that the certification order in this case failed to satisfy Rule 54(b) requirements.The circuit court held that the Inghrams failed properly to resist FNB's summary judgment motion on its foreclosure and replevin claims and denied summary judgment on one of the Inghrams' counterclaims. After the court issued its final order and judgment, the Inghrams appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal based on the circuit court's order for Rule 54(b) certification, holding that the the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the foreclosure and replevin claims as a final judgment under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-54(b). View "First National Bank v. Inghram" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment entered by the circuit court in favor of Defendant, Rapid City, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for negligence, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff was riding her bicycle near the curb on a street in Rapid City when when her front tire fell through a storm drain grate she was riding over (grate four), causing her to crash and suffer a spinal cord injury. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the City was negligent for failing to repair a modified and subsequently damaged grate four. The circuit court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that grate four was in a damaged condition on the day of her accident; and (2) S.D. Codified Laws 31-32-10 does not provide a remedy against a governmental entity for known dangerous design defects on a highway or street. View "Godbe v. City Of Rapid City" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Bonnie London, the mother of person who shot plaintiff Sergeant John Koening of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, based on the events leading up to the shooting, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment.In underlying criminal case, Donald was convicted of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer for shooting and injuring Koening. Plaintiffs - Sergeant Koening and his wife - brought negligence and loss of consortium claims against Donald and Bonnie. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Bonnie, concluding that she did not owe a legal duty to control or supervise Donald, an adult, and should not be subject to liability for his criminal conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Bonnie owed no duty to Sergeant Koening under a general negligence theory because she was not in a special relationship with Donald; and (2) Bonnie was not subject to a legal duty based upon her own conduct because it did not create a foreseeable high risk of harm. View "Koenig v. London" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against her father-in-law (Defendant) alleging child sex abuse, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment.Because Plaintiff filed her amended complaint more than three years after she discovered or reasonably should have discovered her injury and its cause, the circuit court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the child sex abuse claim as untimely under S.D. Codified Laws 26-10-25. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not presumptively establish that Plaintiff instituted her child sex abuse action beyond the limitation period in section 26-10-25. View "Syrstad v. Syrstad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court imposing a penitentiary sentence after Defendant pleaded guilty to two felonies, holding that the State's comments at sentencing did not breach its implied obligation of good faith under the terms of the plea agreement.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of abuse or cruelty to a minor, in exchange for the State's recommendation for a suspended execution of sentence, and also pleaded guilty to one count of a controlled substance, in exchange for the State's recommendation of a fully suspended sentence. The circuit court accepted Defendant's guilty pleas and then sentenced her to twelve years' imprisonment with eight years suspended on the child abuse conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State's sentencing argument violated the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's argument was insufficient to meet her burden under plain error review. View "State v. Guziak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Father, holding that any error committed by the circuit court did not prejudice Father.After a hearing, the circuit court issued a decision terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it prematurely signed the State's proposed findings, but Father failed to establish prejudice caused by the error; (2) did not err when it determined that the Department of Social Services made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family; (3) did not clearly err in finding that Father's continued custody of the children would result in serious physical or emotional harm; and (4) did not err when it found that termination of Father's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children. View "In re A.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of this election contest and its determination that Constitutional Amendment A was submitted to the voters at the November 3, 2020 election in violation of the single subject requirement in S.D. Const. art. XXIII, 1, holding that the circuit court did not err.At the election at issue, South Dakota voters approved Amendment A, "An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana; and to require the Legislature to pass laws regarding hemp as well as laws ensuring access to marijuana for medical use." Plaintiffs filed a statutory election contest and a separate declaratory judgment action claiming Amendment A was unconstitutional. The circuit court dismissed the election contest, concluding it was not an appropriate proceeding to challenge the amendment, but concluded in the declaratory judgment action that Amendment A violated Articles XXIII, 1 and 2. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs identified no irregularity in the election process; and (2) the submission of Amendment A to the voters plainly and palpably violated Article XXIII, 1. View "Thom v. Barnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for assault by a jail inmate - contract with bodily fluids, simple assault against an inmate, and threatening a law enforcement officer, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a surveillance video into evidence and that the error prejudiced the outcome of his trial. Specifically, Defendant argued that a lay foundation was required under S.D. Codified Laws 19-19-901(b)(1) to authenticate the video and that that the necessary foundation was not laid in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence adequately supported the circuit court's finding that the video was an accurate recording of the incident leading to Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Reeves" on Justia Law