Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence and having an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing that the magistrate court and circuit court erred by failing to suppress evidence from the traffic stop that led to his convictions because the law enforcement officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of the circumstances led to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore, the lower courts did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts of kidnapping in the first degree, eleven counts of aggravated assault, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict on the kidnapping charges; (2) the circuit court did not err in refusing to give Defendant’s proposed jury instruction on kidnapping; (3) Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the remaining charges was waived for consideration on appeal; and (4) the circuit court’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. View "State v. Traversie" on Justia Law

Father filed for divorce from Mother and sought custody of Daughter. Mother’s sister, Aunt, intervened and sought custody of Daughter. The circuit court awarded custody of Daughter to Aunt, finding that Aunt sought custody of Daughter only until such time as Father or Mother was able to properly care for Daughter and that it was in Daughter’s best interest to remain with Aunt. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the extraordinary circumstance that Aunt has been Daughter’s primary caregiver for almost all of Daughter’s life was sufficient to rebut Father’s presumptive rights; and (2) the circuit court properly considered which custody arrangement was in Daughter’s best interest. View "Aguilar v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

James Leach, a South Dakota attorney who represents clients in workers’ compensation cases, petitioned the Department of Labor for a declaratory ruling regarding the application of a statute under which the Department excludes discretionary bonuses from the earnings used to calculate an injured worker’s average weekly wage. The Department issued a declaratory ruling that discretionary bonuses may not be included in the wage calculation. Leach appealed. The circuit court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that, in the absence of an actual case, the Department was without subject matter jurisdiction to issue the declaratory ruling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department and the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider Leach’s petition for a declaratory ruling. Remanded to consider the appeal on the merits. View "In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling" on Justia Law

The South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) received custody of two minor children after a circuit court terminated the parents’ parental rights through abuse and neglect proceedings. Petitioners were foster parents who had been caring for one child until DSS informed them that it wanted to place the child in the home of other foster parents with the child’s sibling. Petitioners filed petitions for adoption of the two minor children. DSS moved to dismiss the petitions, alleging that Petitioners lacked standing to petition to adopt children that are in the custody of DSS without the consent of DSS. The circuit court denied DSS’s motions to dismiss the petitions, concluding that S.D. Codified Laws 25-6 allowed Petitioners to adopt children within the custody of DSS without DSS’s approval. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners had standing to initiate adoption proceedings under section 25-6. View "In re Adoption of A.A.B." on Justia Law

Black Hills Excavating Services, Inc. (BHE) and Retail Construction Services, Inc. (RCS) entered into three subcontract agreements pursuant to which BHE agreed to perform construction services for RCS. BHE later filed suit alleging that RCS breached the subcontracts. RCS counterclaimed against BHE for breach of contract and also filed a complaint against BHE’s president, Mitch Morris, alleging that he was personally liable for BHE’s actions. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of RCS and awarded damages but did not impose personal liability on Morris. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that BHE had breached the subcontracts and that RCS was not liable for breach of contract; and (2) Morris was not personally liable for the corporation’s acts. View "Black Hills Excavating Servs., Inc. v. Retail Constr. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment and ordered to reimburse the county for costs of prosecution. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising six issues for review. The circuit court denied the claims after an evidentiary trial. Appellant appealed, raising three issues for review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to prove that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient or that Appellant was prejudiced; (2) the State did not violate the terms of the plea-bargain agreement; and (3) the sentencing court did not err by failing to advise Appellant of his Boykin rights during sentencing. View "Keinsasser v. Weber" on Justia Law

Developers obtained a conditional use permit to build a dairy on Owner’s property in Brookings County. The City of Hendricks and others (collectively, City) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court challenging the permit. The circuit court affirmed the grant of the permit. City appealed. Developers filed a notice of review to challenge City’s standing but did not serve their notice of review on Owner. City moved to dismiss Developers’ notice of review/cross-appeal, arguing that Owner was a party required to be served with the notice of review. The affirmed, holding (1) Owner was a party required to be served with Developers’ notice of review, and Developers’ failure to serve Owner required dismissal of their notice of review/cross-appeal; and (2) neither S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-5(a) nor Developers’ alleged alignment of interests with Owner excused Developers’ failure to serve Owner. View "Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass’n v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment with twenty years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, Defendant argued that his sentence was cruel and unusual because it was disproportionate to the sentence that his codefendant received for the same offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the harshness of Defendant’s sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense, and although his sentence is more severe than his codefendant’s, his culpability is correspondingly greater; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not violate the Eighth Amendment or abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Rice" on Justia Law

The Laskas entered into a contract involving real property with the Barr Partners. Believing the contract created an option, the Barr Partners attempted to buy the property listed in the contract. The Laskas contended that the contract was ambiguous and void for lack of a time of performance and lack of mutual assent. The circuit court found the contract to be unambiguous and concluded that it granted the Barr Partners a right of first refusal and limited their rights under the contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contract was ambiguous. Remanded to the circuit court to consider extrinsic evidence and to determine the parties’ intent. View "Laska v. Barr" on Justia Law