Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual contact with a child under sixteen years of age. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making a misstatement of law during closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s act of pressing his erect penis against the victim's buttocks constituted sexual contact and, as a result, a violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-22-7, and thus, the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument was not erroneous and did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Bariteau" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorized ingestion of a controlled substance. At the change of plea hearing, the State agreed to recommend a light sentence with no jail time. At sentencing, however, the State impliedly argued for a harsher sentence. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to five years of imprisonment with one year suspended. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the State’s failure to recommend a light sentence and no jail time at sentencing was a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. View "State v. Slotsky" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with three counts of simple assault against a law enforcement officer, among other offenses. Defendant served a subpoena on the county sheriff requesting all disciplinary records and complaints contained within the arresting officer’s personnel file. The sheriff filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The circuit court denied the motion in part and ordered the sheriff to produce, for in camera review, portions of the officer’s personnel records from the past five years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ordering the sheriff to produce the arresting officer’s personnel records for in camera review. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of simple assault against a law enforcement officer, among other offenses. Defendant served a subpoena on the county sheriff requesting all disciplinary records and complaints contained within the personnel files of three sheriff department detectives. The sheriff moved to quash the subpoena. The circuit court denied the motion in part and ordered the sheriff to produce, for in camera review, complaints against the officers and disciplinary records and actions resulting from the incident for which Defendant was charged. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ordering the sheriff to produce portions of the three detectives’ personnel records for in camera review. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Dusty Groom’s handgun discharged, shooting Brody Heitmann in the head. Heitmann survived and sued Groom. Heitmann obtained a judgment against Groom and also obtained an assignment from Groom of Groom’s right to enforce coverage under an insurance policy issued to Groom’s grandmother by American Family Mutual Insurance. Heitmann subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action against American Family seeking ruling that, on the date of the shooting, Groom was an insured under the policy for purposes of liability coverage. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a relative of the insured residing on the insured’s premises, and not in the household of the insured, is not a “resident relative” under the policy. View "Heitmann v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Kern was injured in a rear-end collision in which the other driver was at fault. Kern filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim with Progressive Northern Insurance Company, his insurance provider. Months of settlement negotiations ended in a stalemate. Thereafter, Kern brought an action against Progressive for bad faith, alleging that Progressive’s settlement offers had been intentionally inadequate. Kern also sought unpaid UIM benefits. After a trial, the jury awarded Kern $18,650 in unpaid UIM damages and found that Progressive had not acted in bad faith. Kern appealed, alleging several errors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of Kern’s alleged errors required reversal and that the trial court did not clearly err by refusing to award attorney’s fees. View "Kern v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a severe storm, Richard and Lorayna Papousek discovered that ninety-three of their cattle were dead. It was determined that the cause of the cattle’s death was drowning. At the time, the Papouseks had in effect a farmowner-ranchowner policy purchased from De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance Company of South Dakota. De Smet denied the Papouseks’ claim filed under the drowning provision of the policy because none of the cattle were found submerged in water. The Papouseks filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the policy covered the cattle losses. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of De Smet. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Papouseks established coverage under the drowning provision, and De Smet did not prove an exclusion to coverage under the policy. View "Papousek v. De Smet Farm Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs and Defendants owned abutting properties. This lawsuit centered on the drainage of water from Defendants’ property onto Plaintiffs’ property. Specifically, Plaintiffs contended that Defendants caused an increased amount of drainage on Plaintiffs’ land by altering the natural flow of water across Defendants’ land. After a jury trial, Plaintiffs were awarded $9,950 in damages. Defendants requested judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to offer proof that Defendants caused the increase in drainage. The court denied the motions. The court subsequently granted Plaintiffs a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to pay an additional $28,936 to Plaintiffs for repairs and preventive landscaping. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by Defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, as Plaintiffs’ testimony was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Defendants caused the water invasion; and (2) erred in granting the injunction, as S.D. Codified Laws 21-8-14 did not authorize the first half of the injunction, and, even if it did, the second half of the injunction was overbroad and an abuse of discretion. View "Magner v. Brinkman" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to twenty years in prison with four years suspended and credit for time served. Defendant appealed, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the circuit court erred in denying his request for a new trial, and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it did not address Defendant’s motion for a change of counsel. Remanded for the circuit court to appoint new counsel and conduct a new sentencing hearing. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

A county Board of Adjustment granted Developer a conditional use permit for a concentrated animal feeding operation. Petitioners challenged the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board did not have jurisdiction to grant the permit because the county had failed to validly enact the ordinance authorizing the Board to issue permits. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision. In so doing, the court refused to consider whether the county validly enacted the ordinance, deciding that such review would be outside the scope of Petitioners’ writ challenging the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioners had standing to appeal the Board’s decision; and (2) the circuit court erred when it refused to consider the validity of the ordinances enacted by the county, as review in this case was not beyond the scope of the writ. View "Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass’n v. Brookings County Planning & Zoning Comm’n" on Justia Law