Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to a state officer on the grounds that the officer lacked authority to investigate crimes in Indian country, holding that the officer did not violate any jurisdictional principles by entering Indian country to investigate crimes that occurred outside Indian country.When Defendant spoke with agents from the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs at his home located on Indian trust land concerning property crimes that had occurred outside Indian country he produced evidence implicating him a burglary in Bennett County. Defendant was charged in state court. The circuit court suppressed Defendant's statements, concluding that the agents did not have authority to investigate state criminal offenses in Indian country. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show that the agents lacked authority to investigate state offenses while in Indian country or that the agents' actions infringed upon tribal sovereignty; and (2) Defendant failed to show a Fourth Amendment violation. View "State v. Cummings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court reversing and modifying the decision of the hearing examiner modifying the Roberts County Director of Equalization's tax assessments on four of James Pirmantgen's properties but affirming the County's remaining twelve assessments, holding that the circuit court erred.On appeal, the County argued that the circuit court erred in concluding that it failed properly to value Pirmantgen's properties for tax assessment purposes. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court properly determined that the hearing examiner's valuations as to three parcels were clearly erroneous; (2) the circuit court erred in reversing the hearing examiner's decision as to ten properties and in directing the County to reduce the assessments on these properties; and (3) because the circuit court did not have the authority to order a refund of taxes, it erred in directing the County to reimburse Pirmantgen any taxes paid in excess of what should have been paid. View "Pirmantgen v. Roberts County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court entering judgment in favor of Rapid City Medical Center (RCMC) and three of its doctors (collectively, Defendants) in this negligence action, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's request to call two rebuttal witnesses and refusing Plaintiff's proposed jury instruction on agency.In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not inform her of a growing mass in her chest that caused persistent issues with her throat and chest until the mass was removed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiff's request to call two rebuttal witnesses in an attempt to lay foundation for medical records not offered during Plaintiff's case-in-chief; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the agency instruction relative to the claims Plaintiff raised against Defendants. View "Frye-Byington v. Rapid City Medical Center" on Justia Law