Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury on second-degree murder did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to notice of the charges against him and his right to defend against such charges where second-degree murder was not charged in the indictment; (2) the circuit court did not deny Defendant his right to confront witnesses by limiting his cross-examination of a State witness; (3) the circuit court did not err in refusing to suppress Defendant’s statements made to an officer immediately after the shooting; and (4) Defendant’s sentence for aggravated assault was not cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. McCahren" on Justia Law

Richard and Susan Karst sued Shur Company and Wilson Trailer Company alleging defective design and improper warnings related to Shur’s electric-tarp system that Wilson Trailer included on a grain trailer it sold to Richard. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the Karsts’ failure-to-warn claims and granted summary judgment to Wilson on the Karsts’ negligent-defective-design claim. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants on the Karsts’ remaining claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) instructing the jury on strict liability; (2) granting summary judgment on the Karsts’ improper-warnings claims; and (3) refusing to admit evidence of the warnings that were provided. View "Karst v. Shur-Co." on Justia Law

Three individuals (the Conservators) were appointed guardians and conservators of Mary Novotny. The Conservators established the Mary D. Novotny Trust. Catherine Novotny was a beneficiary of the Trust, and the conservators were the trustees. When a dispute over the Trust arose between the trustees and Catherine, the circuit court granted reimbursement of expenses to the trustees. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Conservators and awarded them reimbursement and future expenses. Catherine appealed. The Supreme Court remanded, holding that there was no evidence in the record that supported the basis for reimbursement under S.D. Codified Laws 55-3-13, and therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the Conservators’ motions for expenses. View "In re Guardianship of Novotny" on Justia Law

Tyler Erickson filed a petition for a protection order against Austin Earley, a fellow hunter. The circuit court found in favor of Erickson, determining that Earley’s actions constituted stalking, and granted Erickson a permanent order of protection. Earley appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting the protection order and that the protection order violated his right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Earley’s actions constituted harassment, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by granting the protection order; and (2) the protection order did not violate Earley’s right to free speech because “freedom of expression does not include threatening or harassing conduct.” View "Erickson v. Earley" on Justia Law

In November 2009, Plaintiff underwent a knee-replacement surgery at Sanford USD Medical Center. The day after the surgery, when he was still hospitalized, Plaintiff fell while walking with assistance from a patient-care technician. After being discharged, Plaintiff underwent inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient physical therapy. In September 2012, Plaintiff sought additional physical therapy for the alleged effects of the injury resulting from his fall. When Sanford declined to pay for additional treatment, Plaintiff commenced this action. Sanford moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff’s action was time-barred under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-14.1 as a medical malpractice claim. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that he commenced his action within the three-year statute of limitations applicable to general-negligence actions and that the circuit court erred in determining his action was time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s action against Sanford was one for error or mistake, and therefore, section 15-2-14.1’s two-year period of repose applies; and (2) principles of estoppel and tolling are inapplicable to a period of repose, and the continuous-treatment rule did not toll section 15-2-14.1’s period of repose under the facts of this case. View "Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree kidnapping and criminal trespass. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to give Defendant’s proposed instructions defining specific intent and voluntary intoxication. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) second-degree kidnapping is a specific intent crime, and the trial court abused its discretion by not so instructing the jury; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s proposed jury instruction related to voluntary intoxication so that the jury could properly consider his defense; and (3) Defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s abuse of discretion. Remanded. View "State v. Liaw" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to forgery. The circuit court accepted the plea after determining that a factual basis existed for the plea. The court sentenced Defendant without objection. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to obtain a factual basis that the offense occurred in South Dakota and that the adequacy of a factual basis for a plea is a jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an inadequate factual basis does not deprive a circuit court of its subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

In this lengthy estate dispute, Testator’s daughter (Daughter) appealed several rulings of the circuit court, including the circuit court’s denial of her request for relief from an order under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-60(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Daughter relief under section 15-6-60(b); (2) did not err when it considered extrinsic evidence to interpret Testator’s last will and testament and subsequent codicil; (3) properly approved the personal representative’s proposed distribution of Testator’s assets; (4) did not err in reforming the will and codicil; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Testator’s grandson. View "In re Estate of Bickel" on Justia Law

Then-State Representative Steve Hickey sponsored an initiated measure to be certified for the November 2016 general election that would, if adopted, impose a maximum finance charge against certain lenders for certain types of loans. On April 1, 2015, Hickey submitted a copy of the final version to Attorney General Marty Jackley. On May 27, 2015, Jackley filed the title and explanation that he drafted in regard to this measure with the Secretary of State. On June 5, 2015, Erin Ageton, an opponent of the measure, filed an application for a writ of certiorari, asserting that Jackley did not comply with his legal duties under S.D. Codified Laws 12-13-25.1 because his explanation failed to education the voters that the purpose and effect of the measure was to ban short-term lending in South Dakota. The circuit court denied the application for a writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the explanation was adequate under section 12-13-25.1. View "Ageton v. Jackley" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2014 pursuant to a divorce decree awarding joint legal custody of the parties’ children with primary physical custody to Mother. The court allowed Mother to continue to reside in Sioux Falls, where she moved during the trial, awarded Mother certain property and a cash equalization payment, and ordered Father to pay monthly alimony and $70,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s award of joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Mother; (2) reversed the circuit court’s division of the parties’ property, holding that the court erred in its recapture and division of certain gifts Father made years before the divorce trial; (3) reversed the award of alimony, holding that Mother failed to carry her burden of introducing evidence of her need for support; and (4) affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs. View "Kolbach v. Kolbach" on Justia Law