Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several sex-related crimes, all involving one particular child victim. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by allowing a police detective's opinion on why defendants accused of sex offenses against children do not confess during interrogation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the child victim's statements made to a forensic interviewer; and (3) abused its discretion in allowing an expert witness for the State to give a medical diagnosis of "child sexual abuse."View "State v. Buchholtz" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged by information with driving under the influence (DUI). A supplemental information alleged that Appellant had been convicted of DUI in 2009. The State asserted that the prior DUI conviction enhanced the new charge to a second offense DUI. Appellant moved to strike the 2009 conviction on the grounds that it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. The circuit denied Appellant’s motion to strike her predicate conviction, ruling that Appellant did not overcome the presumption of regularity that attached to her 2009 guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Woodard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State’s peremptory strike of a Native American veniremember was racially motivated. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court had failed to address third step of the Batson v. Kentucky analysis and remanded with directions for the court to determine whether Defendant satisfied his burden to prove the State’s peremptory strike was racially motivated. On remand, the circuit court performed the third step and concluded that the State’s strike was not based on purposeful racial discrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed after a de novo review, holding that Defendant failed to carry his burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

Joseph Burkett was arrested by Officer Justin Lux after the officer approached the Burkett’s vehicle, which was stopped in the middle of the road, and concluded that Burkett had been driving under the influence. A jury found Burkett guilty of DUI. Based on Burkett’s two prior DUI convictions within ten years of the current offense, Burkett was sentenced to a Class 6 felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court’s use of Burkett’s prior DUI convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes did not violate Burkett’s right to due process; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; and (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Burkett’s motion to suppress based on Officer's Lux’s stop of Burkett, as the officer's decision to stop Burkett was reasonable. View "State v. Burkett" on Justia Law

John McNeil owned and operated J&J McNeil, LLC. While conducting work for the LLC, McNeil damaged his personal property. McNeil made an insurance claim against the LLC’s commercial general liability insurer, Dakota Fire Insurance Company (Dakota Fire), for the damage caused to his personal property. Dakota Fire, in response, brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of whether the insurance policy created a duty to pay McNeil’s insurance claim. The circuit court concluded that the policy provided coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dakota Fire failed to establish application of the policy’s exclusions. View "Dakota Fire Ins. Co. v. J&J McNeil, LLC" on Justia Law

Peggy Hewitt was involved in two separate rear-end collisions. In the first accident, in 2007, Hewitt was injured after her vehicle was rear-ended at a stop sign by Dwight Berens. In the second accident, in 2008, while Hewitt's vehicle was stopping to avoid a collision with a deer, a vehicle driven by Shelli Felderman struck Hewitt's rear bumper. Hewitt's lawsuits against Berens and Felderman were combined in a single trial in 2012. The jury found both Berens and Felderman negligent and awarded damages to Hewitt against Berens. The jury, however, awarded no damages to Hewitt against Felderman, finding that Felderman's negligence was not a legal cause of Hewitt's injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by (1) denying Hewitt's motions for a directed verdict, for a new trial on the issue of damages, and for attorney's fees and costs; (2) denying Felderman's motion for costs and disbursements as the prevailing party; and (3) allowing testimony regarding future medical procedures.View "Hewitt v. Felderman" on Justia Law

Lester and Harriet Shoup created an inter vivos trust. After Lester and Harriet died, the couple's only children, Gregory and Larry Shoup, filed a motion to terminate the trust. Gregory and Larry argued that the trust had fulfilled its purpose because it only provided for Lester and Harriet during their lives and no trust provision existed directing disposition of the remaining trust assets. Lee and Linda Shoup, Gregory's children, objected, arguing that the trust had not fulfilled its purpose and that two letters found with the original trust document provided instructions on the disposition of trust assets. The circuit court terminated the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly determined that the letters would substantially change the trust if given effect, but that the change was prohibited because the trustees did not consent to the letters in writing; and (2) correctly concluded that the trust had fulfilled its purpose and should be terminated. View "In re Sunray Holdings Trust" on Justia Law

After Mary Lou Fox died, Plaintiff, Mary Lou's daughter and the administratrix of Mary Lou's estate, sued Mary Lou's former husband, Robert Fox. Plaintiff alleged that Mary Lou jointly owned 960 acres of farmland with Robert, that Robert deprived Mary Lou of her ownership interest in the land, and that Plaintiff was thereby deprived of an inheritance from Mary Lou. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Robert, concluding that Mary Lou had no ownership interest in the 960 acres. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each cause of action brought by Plaintiff failed because Mary Lou had no claim to a right of ownership in the 960 acres and Plaintiff had no authority supporting her claims. View "Niesche v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

In 2002, Petitioner, an inmate serving a fifteen-year sentence, pleaded guilty to possession of an unauthorized article by an inmate. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging several constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to preserve Petitioner's right to appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court denied the petition based on prejudice to the State caused by Petitioner's failure to timely file his petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption of prejudice to the State in its ability to respond to the application due to Petitioner's failure to timely file the application.View "Davis v. Weber" on Justia Law

Christine and David Colburn leased property from Robert Hartshorn and agreed to care for Hartshorn's cattle. Neither the terms of the cattle care agreement or the lease agreement were reduced to writing. After a dispute, the Colburns served on Hartshorn an agister's lien for caring for Hartshorn's cattle. The Colburns also brought an action to recover amounts due for their care of Hartshorn's cattle and to foreclose the lien. Ultimately, the Colburns received a court order to sell the calves. The circuit court ruled that the Colburns were entitled to one half the net calf sale proceeds from the sale but found the agister's lien invalid under the terms of the parties' implied contract because the cattle were cared for on Hartshorn's land and not the Colburns' land. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that nothing in the state's laws governing agister's liens defeats their validity when cattle are entrusted to a caretaker on the cattle owner's land. Remanded.View "Colburn v. Hartshorn" on Justia Law