Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage (DUI), holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant a preliminary hearing.The State charged Defendant with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Defendant moved for a preliminary hearing. The circuit court denied the motion. The State then filed a supplemental information alleging that Defendant had been convicted of two prior DUIs, thereby charging him with DUI third offense, a Class 6 felony. The plain language of S.D. Codified Laws 23A-4-3 entitles a defendant to a preliminary hearing if he is charged with an offense "punishable as a felony." The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because Defendant faced a potential felony conviction he was entitled to a preliminary hearing. View "State v. Rus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit court entering judgment in favor of Thomas Wright on his claims for negligence, breach of contract, and deceit, holding that the circuit court erred in its damages award.Curtis Temple expressed interest in purchasing Wright's airplane and took the plane to his ranch, where it was damaged in a crash. When Wright's attempts to obtain compensation from Temple were unsuccessful, he brought suit. Temple also filed a third-party complaint against Ken Merrill, Temple's flight instructor, for negligence and contribution in the event Temple were to be found liable for damages. The jury found Temple liable to Wright on the claims of negligence, breach of contract, and deceit, and awarded damages. The jury also found Temple liable to Merrill but did not award damages to Merrill. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for a new trial on the limited issue of damages, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Temple breached a contract between Temple and Wright; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Temple was negligent; and (3) the circuit court erred in instructing the jury on damages and in determining the total award. View "Wright v. Temple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of simple assault against a law enforcement officer, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant claimed, among other things, that her conviction of aggravated assault was unlawful because the gun she was holding at the time of the incident giving rise to her convictions was inoperable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of Defendant's conduct giving rise to the simple assault charge; (2) did not err, under the circumstances, by not instructing the jury on the definition of a firearm and by prohibiting Defendant's argument regarding firearm operability; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, burglary, and other offenses, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) abused its discretion in admitting other act evidence from Defendant's ex-wife, but the error did not necessitate reversal; (2) followed the statutory procedures during jury selection such that structural or other reversible error did not occur; (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence entered after he pled nolo contendere to three counts of possession of child pornography pursuant to a plea agreement, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment or constitute an abuse of discretion.The circuit court sentenced Defendant to ten years' incarceration, with six years suspended on each count and credit for time served. The court ordered counts one and two to be served consecutively with count three to run concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Miles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of criminal solicitation of aiding and abetting first degree murder, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's pretrial and post-trial motions, in denying Defendant's requested jury instruction, or in admitting certain testimony.Defendant requested that a friend procure a gun for him so that he could kill a medical doctor who treated his wife. Based on this conduct, Defendant was convicted of criminal solicitation of aiding and abetting first-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the court erred in denying his pretrial and post-trial motions arguing that one cannot criminally solicit another to aid and abet an offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's pretrial and post-trial motions where S.D. Codified Laws 22-4A-1 permits a defendant to be charged with criminal solicitation of aiding and abetting an offense; (2) did not err in instructing the jury on the elements of aiding, abetting, or advising; and (3) erroneously admitted the doctor's testimony, but the error was not prejudicial. View "State v. Thoman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court reversing the decision of the Deuel County Board of Adjustment granting special exception permits (SEP) to Deuel Harvest Wind Energy, LLC and Deuel Harvest Wind Energy South, LLC (Deuel Harvest) to develop two wind energy systems in the County, holding that the circuit court erred by invalidating the votes of two Board members.Following a public hearing, the Board unanimously approved the SEPs. Appellees, several residents of Deuel County and neighboring counties, petitioned for a writ of certiorari, asserting that several Board members had interests or biases disqualifying them from considering the permits. The circuit court invalidated the votes of two Board members due to disqualifying interests and overturned the Board's approval of the SEPs. The Supreme Court reversed in part and reinstated the Board's unanimous vote in approving the SEPs, holding that the circuit court erred in disqualifying the two members from voting on the SEPs. View "Holborn v. Deuel County Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim and directed the entry of summary judgment dismissing this the Hamlin County Sheriff and Hamlin County, and, as to Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims, reversed the circuit court's denial of summary judgment on the Sheriff's qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, holding that the circuit court erred in part.Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the County, Sheriff, and other deputies after their mobile home was damaged during the arrest of their son. Plaintiffs sought compensation from the defendants for inverse condemnation and filed a separate claim for deprivation of constitutional rights under section 1983. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the County but denied the other summary judgment motions. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) damage caused by law enforcement during the arrest of an alleged fleeing felon is not a compensable taking under S.D. Const. art. VI, 13; and (2) the Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' section 1983 claim. View "Hamen v. Hamlin County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Oglala Lakota County Commission denying Wings as Eagles Ministries, Inc.'s petition seeking an abatement of its property taxes for 2014 and 2015, holding that the circuit court did not err.Wings applied for property tax exempt status for the 2014 and 2015 tax years. The applications were denied and became final determinations of the property's exempt status for those years. Wings then filed its abatement petition, which the Commission denied. The circuit court affirmed, concluding that Wings was unable to meet the threshold eligibility element for an abatement because the final determinations denying exempt status conclusively established that Wings was not exempt for the 2014 and 2015 tax years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it concluded that Wings did not qualify for an abatement under S.D. Codified Laws 10-18-1(3); and (2) Wings' estoppel argument was unreviewable on appeal. View "Wings As Eagles Ministries, Inc. v. Oglala Lakota County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the circuit court concluding that J. Clancy, Inc.'s mechanic's liens placed against certain property were valid and unenforceable and rejecting J. Clancy's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, holding that the trial court erred in holding that a divisible implied-in-fact contract controlled the parties' express agreement.J. Clancy, a construction company, sued Ghazanfar Khan and his company, Khan Comfort, LLC. J. Clancy sought enforcement of mechanic's liens it placed against the property and, in the alternative, brought claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The circuit court concluded (1) the mechanic's liens were unenforceable because they were insufficiently itemized; (2) a divisible, implied-in-fact contract, rather than an express contract, governed the parties' relationship; and (3) J. Clancy breached the contract due to non-performance. The court then ordered J. Clancy to reimburse Khan Comfort for overpayments Khan Comfort made. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in concluding that a divisible implied-in-fact contract controlled the parties' express agreement because a valid, express contract controlled the parties' obligations; and (2) erred in invalidating the mechanic's liens for inadequate itemization. View "J. Clancy, Inc. v. Khan Comfort, LLC" on Justia Law