Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Megan Ruschenberg, Jessica Cornelius, and Heather Rensch (collectively, Appellants) were employees at two businesses that sold adult movies, clothing, and other sexual products. Keith Johnson was a majority owner of the businesses, and David Eliason was a minority owner and helped to manage both businesses. Each Appellant alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Eliason during her employment. Ruschenberg was allegedly raped by Eliason, which resulted in a pregnancy and an abortion. Appellants filed complaints against Eliason and the businesses (together, Defendants), alleging several causes of action. The jury returned a verdict for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of Ruschenberg’s abortion or in denying Appellants’ motion for a mistrial based on Johnson’s statements at trial. View "Ruschenberg v. Eliason" on Justia Law

An employee (Isack) was injured during the course and scope of his employment with his employer. Acuity, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer, paid workers’ compensation benefits to Isack. Isack then retained attorney John Knight for legal representation in a suit against the tortfeasor and his employer. In turn, Acuity retained an attorney to represent its statutory rights of recovery and offset in Isack’s claim. Isack and the tortfeasor’s employer reached a litigation settlement. The trial judge subsequently awarded Knight one-third of Acuity’s recovery and offset award. Acuity appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by giving Knight a thirty-three percent contingent fee from Acuity’s settlement portion because Acuity retained its own attorney to represent its interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court’s application of S.D. Codified Laws 62-4-39 and its allocation of the entire contingent fee to Knight was not clearly erroneous. View "Isack v. Acuity" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in Oregon in 2008, and the Oregon court granted Mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child. Although Father was granted supervised visitation at least once a month, Father visited the child on two occasions only. Father also failed in general to pay child support. Mother later moved to South Dakota and eventually married Stepfather. Mother and Stepfather subsequently initiated proceedings for adoption of the child. The trial court waived Father's consent to the adoption, terminated his parental rights, and entered the order for adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in waiving Father's consent to the adoption and in determining that it was in the best interest of the child to grant the stepparent adoption.View "In re Adoption of Z.N.F." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to eight years incarceration. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. At issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence establishing that Defendant exercised dominion or control over a video file containing child pornography when the State presented no direct evidence that Defendant possessed the video, but rather relied on circumstantial evidence to convict Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.View "State v. Riley" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Specifically, Defendant contended that police officers did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop or frisk him, and therefore, the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant was not subjected to an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore, the subsequently discovered evidence was admissible.View "State v. Mohr" on Justia Law

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