Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the final dispositional order of the circuit court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father, the biological parents of C.R.W., holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.C.R.W. was the subject of an abuse and neglect proceeding before the circuit court. C.R.W. was considered an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1903(4), and the Oglala Sioux Tribe intervened in the proceeding. The Tribe moved to disqualify C.R.W.'s attorney on the grounds that the attorney had a conflict of interest with C.R.W. The circuit court denied the motion. During the proceedings, Mother and the Tribe moved to transfer the case to tribal court, but the motion was denied. After the parents' parental rights were terminated, Mother and the Tribe appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it denied the Tribe's motions to disqualify C.R.W.'s attorney; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motions to transfer jurisdiction. View "In re C.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving a vehicle with alcohol in the blood in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 32-23-1(1), holding that the magistrate court's finding that Defendant provided valid, voluntary consent to the blood draw was not clearly erroneous.After law enforcement officers arrested Defendant for driving under the influence one of the officers asked Defendant if he would consent to a blood draw. Defendant twice answered, "okay," and his blood was drawn without a warrant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the blood draw was taken without a warrant or his valid consent. The magistrate court denied the motion. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) applied the correct standard of review to the magistrate court's decision; and (2) did not err in affirming the magistrate court's decision that Defendant provided valid, voluntary consent to the blood draw. View "State v. Slepikas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Smith Angus Ranch Inc. (SAR) on its claims for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing, holding that the circuit court erred by excluding extrinsic oral evidence in this case.In its complaint, SAR alleged that Travis Hurst, while serving as a director and officer of SAR, wrongfully acquired SAR assets and made improper purchases using SAR funds. After the court prohibited Hurst from presenting extrinsic oral evidence to show he was authorized to carry out the contested transactions, SAR moved for partial summary judgment on its claims for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. The court granted partial summary judgment for SAR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by excluding extrinsic oral evidence; and (2) questions of fact existed precluding summary judgment. View "Smith Angus Ranch v. Hurst" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's dispositional order terminating Mother's rights to her daughter, holding that the evidence did not establish that active efforts were made to reunify Mother and the child.After a hearing, the court determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the State "made reasonable and active efforts to provide remedial services designed to prevent the breakup of the family and those rehabilitative programs [had] been unsuccessful." On appeal, Mother challenged the court's conclusion that active efforts were provided to prevent the breakup of the family and that the efforts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights on the basis that the South Dakota Department of Social Services had been making active efforts since the inception of the case and that such efforts were unsuccessful. View "In re C.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's adjudication of I.T.B. as a delinquent child, holding that the evidence in the record was insufficient to support a determination that I.T.B. had made a terroristic threat.The circuit court adjudicated I.T.B. a delinquent child for making a terrorist threat in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-8-13(1). The adjudication was based on I.T.B.'s conduct at a high school principal's office. Specifically, I.T.B. uttered the word "bomb" in earshot of other students and also picked up some scissors and uttered the words "kill someone." The Supreme Court reversed the adjudication, holding that I.T.B.'s utterances, without further context, were insufficient to support a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that I.T.B. threatened to commit a "crime of violence" or an "act dangerous to human life involving...any explosive device" with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, as required by section 22-8-13(1). View "In re Interest Of I.T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree and first-degree manslaughter and sentencing Defendant to life in prison on the murder conviction, holding that that the circuit court erred in one of its evidentiary rulings, but the error did not rise to the level of prejudicial error requiring reversal.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the circuit court's evidentiary rulings regarding the testimony of a particular witness and her subsequent impeachment were erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) failed correctly to weigh the prejudicial effect of Defendant's statements made to the witness, but the error did not require reversal because it did not rise to the level of prejudicial error; (2) did not violate Defendant's right to be brought to trial within 180 days under S.D. Codified Laws 23A-44-5.1; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Little Long" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance and several misdemeanor offenses, holding that the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for a violation of the 180-day speedy trial rule.At issue on appeal was the circuit court's decision to exclude 102 days between the time of Defendant's first appearance and the trial in which a Minnehaha County warrant was outstanding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court properly determined that the delay caused by Defendant's absence from Minnehaha County was attributable to him; and (2) therefore, the circuit court properly excluded the 102 days in which the Minnehaha County warrant was outstanding. View "State v. Langen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Roy and Kristen Maynard and dismissing the complaint against them brought by Robert and Sharlene Wilson, the owners of an adjacent property, alleging that the Maynards violated restrictive covenants, holding that the circuit court did not err.The Maynards built the home at issue in a residential development and rented the home to short-term guests. The Wilsons brought this action claiming that the Maynards violated the restrictive covenants limiting use of properties in the development to "residential purposes." The circuit court concluded that short-term rentals were a residential purpose and granted summary judgment for the Maynards. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Maynards did not breach the covenants, and therefore, the circuit court properly granted their motion for summary judgment. View "Wilson v. Maynard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of distributing a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.The evidence at trial centered on the testimony of a confidential informant, who purchased methamphetamine from Defendant during a controlled drug buy. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the informant to testify about other act evidence after finding that Defendant opened the door to such testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if the circuit court abused its discretion by overruling Defendant's general Rule 404(b) objection after defense counsel's question opened the door to further inquiry, the additional testimony was not prejudicial; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Nohava" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question in the positive and held that the costs incurred by Plaintiffs complying with an injunction in the underlying case were "damages" within the meaning of the policies with their insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.In the underlying action, Plaintiffs were sued for negligence and nuisance. Liberty Mutual agreed to defend against the suit under Plaintiffs' homeowners policy and a personal liability policy. A permanent injunction was entered against Plaintiffs. Liberty Mutual, however, stated that it would not indemnify Plaintiffs for the costs they incurred in complying with the injunction on the grounds that the costs did not constitute covered damages under Plaintiffs' policies. Plaintiffs then filed suit against Liberty Mutual, alleging breach of the duty to indemnify. The federal district court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether Liberty Mutual must indemnify Plaintiffs for the cost of complying with the injunction. The Supreme Court answered the question in the positive, holding that the costs incurred by Plaintiffs to comply with the injunction constituted covered "damages" under the Liberty Mutual policies. View "Sapienza v. Liberty Mutual Insurance" on Justia Law