Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sammy Shepley, acting pro se, pled no contest to failing to provide notice of a new address as a registered sex offender and admitted to being a habitual offender. He was sentenced to a suspended five-year penitentiary term with two years of probation. Shepley appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to adequately advise him of the risks of self-representation and abused its discretion by denying his request for substitute counsel.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Hughes County initially appointed attorney Katie Thompson to represent Shepley, but she withdrew due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Attorney Cody Honeywell was then appointed but also withdrew after Shepley expressed a desire to represent himself. The court allowed Shepley to proceed pro se with Honeywell as standby counsel. Shepley later negotiated a plea agreement directly with the State, resulting in a no contest plea and an admission to the habitual offender charge.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court found that the circuit court had adequately informed Shepley of the risks of self-representation, noting that Shepley had extensive experience with the criminal justice system and had been informed of the nature of the charges, his right to counsel, and the potential penalties. The court also determined that Shepley’s request to represent himself was unequivocal and that he had not made a formal request for substitute counsel after Honeywell’s withdrawal.The Supreme Court held that Shepley’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing Shepley to represent himself and in not appointing substitute counsel. View "State v. Shepley" on Justia Law

Nathan Parris was taken into protective custody by law enforcement after making suicidal statements and exhibiting concerning behavior. Officers searched him before transporting him to the hospital for a mental health evaluation and found a small, closed container in his pocket, which contained methamphetamine. Parris was charged with possession of a controlled substance and moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that the search of the container was impermissible.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, denied Parris's motion to suppress, finding that the officers had probable cause to take him into protective custody and that the search of the container was permissible. Parris was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in a court trial based on stipulated facts.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the officers had probable cause to believe that Parris required emergency intervention due to his suicidal statements, emotional distress, and possession of a loaded handgun. The court also held that the search of the closed container was a reasonable administrative step to ensure the safety of Parris, the officers, and the facility, and was not conducted as part of a criminal investigation. Therefore, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, upholding Parris's conviction for possession of a controlled substance. View "State v. Parris" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs are seven members of the South Dakota Air National Guard who also work as federal civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force. They are entitled to 15 days of paid military leave each year in their civilian roles. They allege that the Adjutant General wrongfully denied them military leave while they were serving on active duty, in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, dismissed the USERRA claims sua sponte without reaching the merits of the parties’ arguments. The court concluded that the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of an antimilitary animus to prevail under USERRA. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to military leave. The court held that the plaintiffs do not need to show antimilitary animus because the benefit in question, military leave, is only available to members of the military. The court found that the plaintiffs' Title 10 orders converted their status from state militia members to federal service members, making them eligible for the 15 days of paid military leave under 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(1). The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Christiansen v. Morrell" on Justia Law

The City of Tea passed a resolution imposing a special assessment on properties abutting a road construction project, including property owned by KJD, LLC. The City found that the improvement conferred special benefits on the abutting properties beyond those experienced by the public. KJD objected to the assessment, arguing it was unconstitutional as the project did not confer a special benefit on its property. The circuit court held that KJD did not rebut the presumption that the City’s assessment was valid and did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the City’s findings were incorrect, thus denying KJD’s objection.KJD appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. The Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, noting that the City’s findings in its resolution are presumed correct and that KJD had the burden to rebut this presumption with substantial, credible evidence. The Court found that KJD failed to present such evidence. The City’s findings included that the project would improve aesthetics, safety, and access to the properties, which are considered special benefits. The Court also noted that the City’s method of calculating the assessment based on the cost of the project was constitutionally permissible.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that KJD did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the City’s special assessment was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the City’s findings were supported by the record and that the special assessment did not exceed the value of the benefits conferred on KJD’s property. View "KJD, LLC v. City Of Tea" on Justia Law

In September 2015, Josh Brewer suffered a work-related injury while employed by Tectum Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Truxedo. Brewer filed a workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, which was denied by his employer and their insurer, Berkshire Hathaway. Brewer's claim was initially denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ) and subsequently by the Department of Labor (Department), which found that Brewer did not prove his work-related injury was a major contributing cause of his current condition and ongoing need for treatment. Brewer appealed the Department's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the Department's ruling. Brewer then appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the documentary evidence and expert testimonies. The court found that Brewer's treating physician, Dr. Rothrock, provided a more credible causation opinion than the employer's expert, Dr. Jensen. Dr. Rothrock opined that Brewer's work injury was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for treatment, based on his personal treatment of Brewer and the results of various diagnostic tests. The court concluded that Brewer met his burden of proving causation and reversed the Department's determination on this issue.Regarding Brewer's claim for PTD benefits, the court reviewed the ALJ's findings for clear error. The court found that Brewer did not establish obvious unemployability due to his physical condition, age, training, and experience. Additionally, Brewer's job search efforts were deemed unreasonable, as he did not follow application instructions and highlighted his physical limitations on his résumé. The court also noted that the employer presented sufficient evidence of suitable employment opportunities available to Brewer within his limitations. Consequently, the court affirmed the Department's denial of PTD benefits.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Brewer v. Tectum Holdings" on Justia Law

In 2020, Cody Sturzenbecher and his mother, Judy Sturzenbecher, entered into a series of transactions with Sioux County Ranch, LLC (Sioux County) related to the purchase of their family farm from a trust. Judy bought the farm using a loan from Sioux County, then sold the property to Sioux County, which leased it to Cody. The lease included an option for Cody to purchase the property. Cody defaulted on the lease, leading Sioux County to terminate the lease and list the property for sale.The Sturzenbechers sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Judy’s conveyance of the farm to Sioux County created an equitable mortgage rather than an absolute sale. The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in Turner County, South Dakota, granted the Sturzenbechers’ request for a preliminary injunction and denied Sioux County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Sioux County appealed both decisions.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court concluded that the arrangement between the Sturzenbechers and Sioux County was intended as a financing agreement rather than an absolute sale. The court found that the agreements between the parties were unambiguous but unenforceable as an absolute sale due to public policy favoring a mortgagor’s right of redemption. The court held that the Sturzenbechers were likely to succeed on their equitable mortgage claim and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The court also affirmed the denial of Sioux County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the Sturzenbechers had pled sufficient facts to support their claim. View "Sturzenbecher v. Sioux County Ranch" on Justia Law

Seven members of the South Dakota Air National Guard, who also work as federal civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force, alleged that the South Dakota Adjutant General wrongfully denied them military leave while they were serving on active duty, in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to 15 days of paid military leave each year in their civilian roles, which they were denied while on active duty.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, dismissed the USERRA claims sua sponte after a court trial, concluding that the plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of an antimilitary animus to prevail. The court did not reach the merits of the parties’ arguments and found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead or prove such animus. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to military leave. The court held that the plaintiffs did not need to show antimilitary animus because the benefit in question, military leave, is only available to members of the military. The court found that the plaintiffs' active duty under Title 10 orders was not "active Guard and Reserve duty" as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101(d)(6), and therefore, the exception in 32 U.S.C. § 709(g)(2) did not apply. Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to accrue military leave under 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(1) while serving on active duty under Title 10. The court reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Christiansen v. Morrell" on Justia Law

The City of Tea passed a resolution imposing a special assessment on properties abutting a road construction project, including property owned by KJD, LLC. The City found that the improvement conferred special benefits on the abutting properties beyond those experienced by the public. KJD objected to the assessment, arguing it was unconstitutional as the project did not confer a special benefit on its property. The circuit court held that KJD did not rebut the presumption that the City’s assessment was valid and did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the City’s findings were incorrect, thus denying KJD’s objection.KJD appealed to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. The Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, noting that the City’s findings in its resolution are presumed correct and that KJD had the burden to rebut this presumption with substantial, credible evidence. The Court found that KJD failed to present such evidence, particularly as it did not provide testimony or evidence at a trial to counter the City’s findings. The Court also noted that the City’s method of calculating the assessment based on the cost of the project was constitutionally permissible and that the City’s findings regarding the special benefits, such as improved aesthetics and safety, were supported by the project’s features.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that KJD did not meet its burden to prove that the special assessment was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that the City’s findings and the special assessment were valid and did not exceed the value of the benefits conferred on KJD’s property. View "KJD, LLC v. City of Tea" on Justia Law

On October 21, 2021, Officers Nicholas Stevens and Jason Purkapile of the Sioux Falls Police Department stopped a vehicle with an inoperable brake light. The driver, Lee Martin Holy, provided a North Dakota driver’s license but no proof of insurance. Officer Stevens returned to his patrol car to run routine checks and issue a warning ticket. Meanwhile, Officer Purkapile engaged in conversation with Holy’s grandfather, the passenger, and initiated a warrant check on him. When Officer Stevens returned to Holy’s vehicle, he asked about contraband and requested to search the car. Holy admitted to having marijuana and a medical cannabis card. A subsequent search revealed a methamphetamine pipe and methamphetamine, leading to Holy’s arrest.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County denied Holy’s motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the stop was not unreasonably extended by the interdiction questions. The court found that the duration of the stop was not unduly prolonged and that the warrant check on Holy’s grandfather was still pending when Holy admitted to possessing marijuana. Holy was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia based on stipulated facts and was sentenced to supervised probation and court costs.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the interdiction questions did not extend the length of the stop beyond the time necessary to complete the mission, as the warrant check on the passenger was still pending. The court did not address whether a routine warrant check for a passenger is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, leaving that determination for another case. View "State v. Holy" on Justia Law

David and Marcia Earll's daughter, Rebecca, was killed in a car accident caused by an underinsured motorist. The Earlls sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under their motor vehicle liability policy with Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska. Farmers Mutual denied the claim based on an "owned but not insured" exclusion in the policy. The Earlls filed for a declaratory judgment, arguing that the exclusion was against public policy and that they were entitled to UIM benefits. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court ruled in favor of Farmers Mutual, and the Earlls appealed.The circuit court granted summary judgment to Farmers Mutual, relying on a previous decision in De Smet Insurance Company of South Dakota v. Pourier, which upheld the validity of an "owned but not insured" exclusion for UIM coverage. The Earlls argued that this decision should be overruled or distinguished, emphasizing that similar exclusions had been found to violate public policy in the context of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the "owned but not insured" exclusion to UIM coverage violated South Dakota public policy. The court noted that UIM coverage is intended to protect insured individuals from underinsured motorists and that such coverage follows the insured rather than the vehicle. The court overruled its previous decision in Pourier, finding it inconsistent with the statutory purpose of UIM coverage and other related decisions. The case was remanded for the circuit court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Earlls. View "Earll v. Farmers Mutual Insurance" on Justia Law