Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kaleb Ironheart was charged with first-degree robbery and aggravated assault after stealing a bottle of liquor from a grocery store. The store manager, Francis Gergen, noticed Ironheart acting suspiciously, saw him grab a bottle of whiskey, and then watched as Ironheart ran out of the store without paying. Gergen chased Ironheart, who then pulled out a knife and threatened Gergen before escaping in a car. Ironheart was later identified and charged.Ironheart was tried in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota. He moved for a judgment of acquittal on both counts, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support either charge. The circuit court denied the motion, and the jury found Ironheart guilty on both counts. Ironheart appealed the robbery conviction, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that under South Dakota law, robbery is defined as the intentional taking of personal property from another person's possession or immediate presence, against their will, accomplished by means of force or fear of force. The court found that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Ironheart used his knife with force or fear of force to retain possession of the liquor or to prevent Gergen’s resistance to the taking. The court also found that the jury could have concluded that the force or fear of force was not used solely as a means of escape. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding Ironheart's robbery conviction. View "State v. Ironheart" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Julie and Gary Liebel, who married in 2010 and divorced in 2022. Prior to their marriage, they had signed a premarital agreement stating that each party's assets would remain separate and under their sole control, even after the marriage. The agreement also stated that neither party would acquire any interest in the other's property due to the marriage. The couple divorced on the grounds of adultery, and the circuit court applied the premarital agreement in dividing their assets. Julie appealed, arguing that the court erred in applying the agreement to the property division in the divorce and abused its discretion in classifying and distributing the parties’ property.The circuit court had found the premarital agreement to be valid and enforceable in the context of divorce. It also found that the agreement unambiguously governed the division of property in the event of divorce. The court treated the marital home, which was held jointly, as marital property, but most of the remaining property was treated as nonmarital. Gary received the bulk of the nonmarital property valued at $713,705. Upon division of the net marital assets, Julie was awarded marital property valued at $35,482, while Gary received marital property valued at $134,535. The court ordered Gary to make a cash equalization payment to Julie in the amount of $49,526, less $2,062.80 in attorney fees awarded to Gary for defending a protection order that the court determined Julie filed maliciously.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the premarital agreement unambiguously provided that neither spouse may claim an interest in the separate property of the other, whether it was acquired before or during the marriage. This could only be understood to mean that the other spouse would not obtain any interest in separately owned property under any circumstances, including divorce, unless mutually agreed to by creating a joint tenancy in any property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's division of property. View "Liebel v. Liebel" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of five parcels of land in Aurora County, South Dakota. The plaintiff, Edward Mohnen, initiated a quiet title action to determine the ownership of these parcels, which were titled in his father's name after his father died intestate in 1969. The defendants included the estate of Edward's late brother, John Mohnen, and the John J. Mohnen Trust. John's Estate counterclaimed, asserting that it held a complete fee interest in all the disputed parcels through adverse possession and also asserted the affirmative defense of laches.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in Aurora County, South Dakota, rejected both the laches defense and adverse possession theory. It determined ownership for the five tracts at issue, applying intestacy laws to evidence concerning the current state of record title.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in its interpretation of the adverse possession claim under South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) 15-3-15. The Supreme Court clarified that SDCL 15-3-15 requires only proof of “(1) claim and color of title made in good faith, (2) ten successive years in possession, and (3) payment of all taxes legally assessed.” The court found that John's Estate met these requirements and thus, reversed the lower court's decision denying John’s Estate’s adverse possession claim under SDCL 15-3-15. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Mohnen v. Estate of Mohnen" on Justia Law

Harry David Evans, serving a life sentence for six criminal offenses including kidnapping, rape, burglary, assault, stalking, and violating a protection order, filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his rights to due process and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The habeas court dismissed three of Evans' claims on the basis of res judicata as they were resolved in Evans' direct appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the remaining claims and dismissed Evans' request for habeas relief.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in South Dakota had previously convicted Evans and his appeal was denied. Evans then filed a habeas corpus petition alleging nine claims, most of which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court granted the State’s motion to dismiss three of Evans’ claims on the basis of res judicata because they were effectively resolved in Evans’ direct appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the remaining claims and dismissed Evans’ request for habeas relief.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Evans' claims were resolved in his direct appeal and are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, Evans failed to establish that his counsel was ineffective for not calling a particular witness, not seeking to introduce cell phone records, and for not calling him to testify in his own defense. View "Evans v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The case involves Wesley Castle's petition to adopt his stepchildren, I.V.E., C.A.E., and L.A.E. The children's biological father and ex-husband of Wesley's wife, Isaac Ellsaesser, objected to the petition, arguing that he does not consent to the adoption and that his consent cannot be waived under SDCL 25-6-4. The children's mother, Frances, had previously divorced Isaac due to a toxic and abusive relationship. Isaac had struggled with alcohol addiction and had faced domestic abuse charges. After the divorce, Isaac completed treatment for his addiction and attempted to reestablish a relationship with his children.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Lawrence County, South Dakota, held an evidentiary hearing on whether Isaac’s consent could be waived. The court determined that Wesley did not prove any of the statutory grounds for waiver by clear and convincing evidence. The court entered an order denying Wesley’s petition, and Wesley appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Wesley failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Isaac had substantially and continuously neglected his children or willfully neglected to pay child support. The court noted that Isaac had made several concerted efforts to reestablish a parental relationship with his children and had begun making child support payments after determining the amount he owed in arrears and how to pay. The court concluded that Isaac's failure to pay child support could not be considered willful under the circumstances. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of I.V.E." on Justia Law

Brandon Hahn was convicted by a jury for intentional damage to property, with the damage amount totaling more than $1,000 but less than $2,500. The property in question was the front door of 88-year-old Delores Moen's home, which Hahn was accused of damaging. Hahn was also charged with obstructing a public officer and disorderly conduct, the latter of which was later dismissed. The State presented multiple witnesses, including Delores' neighbors and the responding police officers, who testified about Hahn's aggressive conduct and their interactions with him. Hahn himself denied any responsibility for damaging the door.In the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, Hahn moved for judgment of acquittal on the intentional damage to property charge, arguing that the State had not established the fair market value of the door, which he claimed included depreciation. The court denied his motion, concluding that the State could prove the damage amount element through evidence of the cost of reasonable repairs. Hahn was found guilty on both counts and was sentenced to an enhanced 15-year prison sentence on Count 1 with ten years suspended and a 30-day jail sentence on Count 2.In the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Hahn appealed, claiming that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the intentional damage to property charge. He argued that the jury could not properly apply the damage element without first establishing the fair market value of the property. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the current version of the intentional damage to property statute focuses on the "damage to property" and not the value of the property. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the damage Hahn caused to Delores’ door was at least $1,000 but less than $2,500, and affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "State v. Hahn" on Justia Law

The case involves Melissa Palmer, who applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits due to loss of income from her self-employment as a sign-language interpreter during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite continuing to work her second job at Woofs and Waves, she did not report this income in her weekly requests for benefits. The South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation, Reemployment Assistance Division (Department) determined that she had misrepresented her income and was therefore ineligible for the benefits she had received. The Department ordered her to repay the benefits and assessed a mandatory penalty.The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department's decision, finding that Palmer had willfully misrepresented her income. The circuit court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Palmer appealed, arguing that she had not willfully misrepresented her income because she believed she only needed to report her self-employment income.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court found that the ALJ's finding that Palmer believed she only needed to report her self-employment income was inconsistent with the conclusion that she had willfully misrepresented her income. The Court held that a willful misrepresentation requires evidence of intentional misrepresentation, not merely knowledge of the falsity of the representation. The Court remanded the case for the ALJ to reconsider whether Palmer was at fault for the overpayment and whether she was eligible for a waiver. View "Palmer V. Dep’t Of Labor & Regulation" on Justia Law

Miranda Ann Henry, also known as Crystal Trinity Pumpkinseed, was sentenced to 75 years for first-degree manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, Christopher Mexican. Henry had been released from prison on parole after serving 13 months for her fourth DUI conviction. She returned to Pierre to continue her relationship with Mexican and began using alcohol and methamphetamine. On February 8, 2022, after a week of heavy drinking, Henry decided to stop drinking. However, she began experiencing hallucinations, a condition she had suffered from since 2014. On February 9, 2022, Henry woke up next to Mexican's lifeless body, covered in blood. Law enforcement found a bloody box cutter in Henry's pocket and her blood alcohol content was 0.227%.Henry was indicted for second-degree murder. However, she entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to first-degree manslaughter involving domestic abuse. The State dismissed the second-degree murder charge. At the sentencing hearing, the court considered Henry's character and history, including her age, previous felony convictions, problems with alcohol abuse, and mental health issues. The court also considered the gruesome nature of the crime and the fact that Henry did not attempt to hide from law enforcement. The court sentenced Henry to 75 years with credit for time served.Henry appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in sentencing. She claimed that the court failed to properly weigh certain circumstances, including her unstable history, nonviolent criminal history, history with alcohol abuse, her intoxication at the time of the offense, and her mental state at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Henry. The court had considered an extensive presentence investigation report and determined that, based on the heinousness of the offense, her prior opportunities for treatment, and her demonstrated tendency to keep committing crimes, she deserved a 75-year sentence. View "State v. Henry" on Justia Law

The case involves MRose Development Co., LLC and Jason Schumacher (MRose) who sought to develop farmland located along Swan Lake in Turner County into 15 lakefront lots. The land was currently included in an agricultural zoning district, and due to residential density restrictions, MRose applied to rezone the land into a lake residential district. The Turner County Board of County Commissioners (the County) denied the application, and MRose appealed to the circuit court.The circuit court reversed the County's decision, interpreting Turner County's zoning ordinance to require approval of the rezoning application as a purely ministerial act because the land was situated along Swan Lake. The County appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision. The court found that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance, which it believed required the County to approve MRose's rezoning application. The Supreme Court held that no provision in the entire 2008 Zoning Ordinance stated that lakefront property must be zoned Lake Residential simply by virtue of its location. The court also held that the County's decision to deny MRose's rezoning application was not arbitrary, as MRose failed to meet its burden of proof that the County acted arbitrarily. View "Mrose Development Co. v. Turner County Bd. Of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The case involves J and L Farms, Inc. (J&L), a South Dakota company, and First Bank, a Florida banking corporation. J&L had an ongoing business relationship with Jackman Wagyu Beef, LLC (Jackman), a Florida-registered company, where Jackman would purchase cattle from J&L. In 2018, Jackman proposed a change in their payment terms, offering to pay for the cattle within 30 days of placing an order, instead of paying prior to the cattle being shipped. To secure each payment, Jackman proposed that J&L would be given a bank guarantee from First Bank. First Bank issued three separate guaranty letters to J&L to secure payment for the sale of cattle. However, Jackman failed to provide full payment for two orders, and First Bank refused to satisfy the outstanding balance.The circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Brown County, South Dakota, entered a default judgment against Jackman after it failed to plead or defend against J&L’s complaint. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts for a South Dakota court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The circuit court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that First Bank had sufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that First Bank purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in South Dakota by issuing three guaranty letters to J&L, a South Dakota company, to facilitate the purchase of South Dakota cattle. The court also found that the cause of action against First Bank arose from its activities directed at South Dakota, and that the acts of First Bank had a substantial connection with South Dakota, making the exercise of jurisdiction over First Bank reasonable. View "J&l Farms" on Justia Law