Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus relief.Appellant pleaded guilty but mentally ill to first-degree manslaughter and to second-degree rape. The circuit court imposed a 130-year sentence for first-degree manslaughter and a forty-five-year sentence for second-degree rape. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for habeas relief, arguing, inter alia, that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel and was compelled to give testimony against himself where the court ordered a psychological examination and where his attorney failed to warn Appellant that statements made to the examiner could be used against him. The habeas court denied Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by failing to invoke it during the psychological examination, and Appellant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel; and (2) Appellant was not deprived of due process, nor was his counsel ineffective for failing to request a hearing to determine if Appellant should receive provisional institutionalization under S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27-42 View "Iannarelli v. Young" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Mother’s motion for a change of custody in which she sought primary physical custody of the parties’ son.When Mother and Father divorced, they agreed to share legal custody of their son and daughter, with Father having primary physical custody of the son (Son), and Mother having primary physical custody of the daughter. Mother later filed a motion for temporary physical custody of Son after he suffered an asthmatic episode, arguing that Son’s health was imperiled by Father’s long-standing smoking habit. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in determining that Son’s interests were better served by remaining in Father’s physical custody; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by ordering Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees. View "Moulton v. Moulton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder. The court held (1) the circuit court did not err in allowing the State to present other acts evidence to the jury but did err in allowing a witness to testify about Defendant’s alleged abuse against her, but Defendant was not entitled to a new trial on this basis; (2) the State’s presentation of a theory of guilt and motive did not amount to prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the circuit court did not err in allowing the State to present testimony from its multiple expert witnesses; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Defendant to present additional instances of alleged child abuse committed by a possible third-party perpetrator; and (5) there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction against Defendant. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence filed by the South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT), holding that the jury’s verdict was not unsupported by any valid legal theory or evidence.DOT was sued by Reede Construction, Inc., which entered into a contract with DOT to perform highway construction work in Sioux Falls. DOT refused to issue a letter of acceptance after requesting several repairs, many of which Reede failed to perform. After Reede left the job and demanded payment for the repairs it had completed, Reede sued, and DOT counterclaimed. The jury returned a verdict awarding no damages to either party. The circuit court denied DOT’s motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. View "Reede Construction, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s personal injury action as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with two discovery orders and failure to pay an attorney’s fees sanction for her failure to comply with a motion to compel discovery. The court held that the circuit court (1) did not err in granting Defendant’s motion for a sanction of attorney’s fees against Plaintiff for her failure to produce documents; (2) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as a sanction for failing to produce IRS Form W-2s; and (3) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as a sanction for failure to pay the attorney’s fees sanction. View "Coloni v. Coloni" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for unlawfully possessing a controlled substance, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant knowingly possessed oxycodone, a controlled drug. At issue on appeal was whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant knew the pills he possessed were a controlled substance of some kind. The Supreme Court held that, when viewed cumulatively and taken in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, there was sufficient evidence and inferences therefrom for a rational jury to have found that Defendant knew the pills he possessed were a controlled substance. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Mother and Stepfather’s (together, Petitioners) petition to have Stepfather adopt Mother’s child without the biological father’s (Father) consent. Petitioners contended that Father’s consent was unnecessary because, among other things, Father had abandoned the child. The circuit court concluded that Petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that that Father had abandoned the child. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that Petitioners failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Father had given up or totally deserted the child. View "In re Adoption of J.Q.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed a circuit court order approving the redrafting of Dean Nelson’s will. The change in the will was proposed upon the petition of Dean’s conservator after Dean was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Elizabeth Nelson, Dean’s wife, argued on appeal that the circuit court erred in permitting the conservator to adopt the new will, which eliminated a trust established for Elizabeth’s benefit consisting of Elizabeth’s lifetime, one-half interest in the residue of Dean’s estate. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the circuit court’s decision to authorize the conservator to change the will was an abuse of discretion due to the lack of adequate factual findings. View "In re Guardianship of Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the circuit court finding that Plaintiffs ido not have an easement, either by grant or prescription, across Mineral Survey 1758 (M.S. 1758) into the adjoining Mineral Survey 1794. On appeal, Plaintiffs asserted that a public right-of-way existed across M.S. 1758 by grant but did not appeal the denial of a prescriptive easement. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish a right in the disputed road that traverses M.S. 1758 by grant in deeds or by statute, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in determining that the disputed road is private. View "Chicoine v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s termination from the drug-court program and subsequent revocation of suspension of execution of a four-year sentence. Contrary to Defendant’s arguments raised on appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) this court may not directly review the drug court’s actions in this appeal, but the court does have appellate jurisdiction over the circuit court’s decision to revoke the suspension of execution of Defendant’s sentence; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the suspension of execution of Defendant’s sentence and by reinstating her original, four-year sentence. View "State v. Stenstrom" on Justia Law