Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Fifteen-year-old Haley Gores was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Steven Smith when Smith lost control of the vehicle. Haley was treated by Dr. Lisa Miller for injuries she received during the accident. Dawn Gores, Haley’s mother and conservator, signed a general release in exchange for a settlement with Smith and Smith’s insurer. The release did not specifically name the treating physician or clinic, but it released al other claims that might develop from the accident. Haley and Dawn subsequently filed a malpractice suit against Dr. Miller and Yankton Surgical Associates (YSA), Dr. Miller’s practice group. Dr. Miller and YSA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the release discharged Plaintiffs’ claims against them. The circuit court granted summary judgment, concluding that, based on the language of the release, the malpractice claims were discharged as a matter of contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that the release barred Plaintiffs’ claims as a matter of contract. View "Gores v. Miller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree rape. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) because the record was insufficient to allow for an appropriate review of Defendant’s argument that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she did not understand S.D. Codified Laws 19-19-412; (2) the circuit court did not commit prejudicial error when it concluded that Defendant was not entitled to a hearing under section 19-19-412 because he did not file a motion for a hearing fourteen days before trial; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it limited Defendant’s cross-examination of the victim to questions related to the victim’s sexual encounters with Defendant; and (4) the circuit court did not err when it considered Defendant’s juvenile psychological records to determine an appropriate sentence. View "State v. Golliher-Weyer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of simple assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court (1) erred in refusing to give a definitive ruling, at the close of the State’s evidence, on his request for a self-defense jury instruction; and (2) violated his constitutional right of confrontation by admitting certified copies of his fingerprint cards from prior arrests in Iowa and Nebraska. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in the manner in which it instructed on self-defense; and (2) the admission of fingerprint cards does not violate the Confrontation Clause because they are not testimonial. View "State v. Reinhardt" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide, driving with alcohol in his blood or while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, possession of marijuana, and ingesting a non-alcoholic substance to become intoxicated. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when in denying his motion to suppress a blood draw because law enforcement and hospital personnel took blood samples from him in violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) blood drawn by hospital personnel for medical purposes is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection, and therefore, suppression of the draw was not warranted; and (2) exigent circumstances existed in regard to the warrantless blood draw ordered by law enforcement such that the blood draw was objectively reasonable. View "State v. Fischer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of child rape and six counts of sexual contact with a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to show six sexual penetrations; (2) the evidence was sufficient and to establish the county where three of the child rape counts occurred; and (3) the counts within the indictment that were identically phrased did not deprive Defendant of fair notice and the ability to defend against double jeopardy, and the record did not support a finding that the jury punished Defendant twice for one crime. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Travis Naser died in a one-vehicle accident that occurred at a T intersection at a dead-end road. The east-west road (“268th Street”) was located in Aurora County. Lynn Foster-Naser, Travis’s wife, brought suit against Aurora County for wrongful death, alleging that the County negligently failed to maintain the double-arrow sign on 268th Street. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that Aurora Township had a statutory duty to maintain the double-arrow sign on 268th Street, and Aurora County did not assume a duty to repair or maintain the Township’s signage when it agreed to maintain the Township’s roads. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Foster-Naser failed to present sufficient probative evidence that the County’s contract agreement to provide road maintenance included an agreement to maintain and repair the Township’s roadway signage. View "Foster-Naser v. Aurora County" on Justia Law

USA Tire Management Systems Inc. entered into a contract with Great Western Bank to “take title to, remove, and transport” tires and casings from a foreclosed property that a bank was attempting to sell. After an audit, the South Dakota Department of Revenue issued an assessment on the gross receipts USA Tire received from Great Western under their contract. USA Tire contested the assessment. The circuit court affirmed the assessment. USA Tire appealed, arguing that it was entitled to a trucking services tax exemption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that USA Tire did not meet its burden of proving that its services were exempt trucking services under S.D. Codified Laws 10-45-12.1. View "In re Sales Tax Liability of USA Tire Mgmt. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of second-degree burglary and four counts of identity theft. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty but mentally ill to grand theft. Defendant appealed, challenging both his jury convictions and the sentences imposed for each of his crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the performance of defense counsel did not clearly deprive Defendant of his constitutional rights to counsel and a fair trial; (2) Defendant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the charges of second-degree burglary and identity theft. View "State v. Chipps" on Justia Law

In 1989, Decedent opened a savings account. In 2007, Decedent included her son (Son) and daughter as additional account owners. Decedent died in 2012. The next year, Son withdrew $17,554 from the account and placed the funds in a certificate of deposit in his name. In doing so, Son relied on S.D. Codified Laws 29A-6-104, which provides that the proceeds of a joint account automatically pass to the surviving account holder. Decedent’s Estate brought suit against Son requesting a judgment for $17,554, asserting that Son converted the funds for his personal use. Son responded that, as joint owner of the account, he could not convert the funds for his own use. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the Estate, concluding that the Estate met its burden of proof that Decedent did not intend to establish a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, and therefore, the Estate rebutted the presumption under section 29A-6-104 that the proceeds automatically pass to the surviving account holder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it determined that Decedent did not intend to create a joint account with right of survivorship in 2007. View "Estate of Card v. Card" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of two ounces or less of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine presented to the jury, as (i) Defendant did not preserve his arguments regarding the validity of his arrest and the subsequent search of his person, and (ii) the search of Defendant’s vehicle was constitutional; and (2) the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly possessed methamphetamine. View "State v. Fischer" on Justia Law