Four new Decisions by SD Supreme Court today

The SD Supreme Court handed down 4 decisions this morning: 1) hearsay phone call to police permissible as cumulative/corrobative; 2) immunity from civil assault found in self-defense statute; 3) Six appeals (consolidated) from Meade and Lawrence County result in affirmance of prison sentences; 4) convictions for failure to appear and assault affirmed, rejecting jurisdictional challenge related to Indian Country issue. Summaries follow: STATE v. CLIFFORD, 2026 S.D. 16: Following a family dispute April 6, 2023, Defendant took a drive, resulting in his arrest. Thereafter he was convicted by jury of “aggravated eluding, reckless driving, driving under suspension, and failing to stop at a stop sign.” As part of its case, the State introduced evidence of a phone call to the police alerting as to Defendant being on the roadway. Defendant asserts on appeal that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay. The SD Supreme Court rejected this argument and affirmed, holding that the phone call evidence was “merely cumulative or corroborative of other evidence that was independently and properly admitted.” This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern. ANDERSON v. STREETER, 2026 S.D. 17: Defendant shot Plaintiff in the chest. Grand Jury considered the facts, but failed to indict. Plaintiff filed this Civil Suit for Assault. The trial court ruled for Defendant holding that he was immune from civil liability because he acted in self-defense, pursuant to SDCL 22-18-4.8 (which grants immunity from both criminal prosecution and civil liability). Plaintiff appeals. The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myrne. Circuit Judge Klinger on this case, in lieu of Justice Gusinsky who had served as the trial judge. Defendant requested appellate attorney fees, but the Court denied the request, noting that attorney fees were awardable by the trial court under to SDCL 22-18-4.8 and, therefore, also awardable on appeal. But, the Court denied the request because Defendant had “not submitted a motion or a ‘verified, itemized statement of legal services rendered,’ as required by SDCL 15-26A-87.3(1).” STATE v. WARE, 2026 S.D. 18: Defendant, whose “criminal history is extensive,” entered guilty pleas to three felony charges in Lawrence County, as well as to a felony charge in Meade County. He was sentenced to prison, with the Meade County sentence to run consecutive to the Lawrence County sentence. The SD Supreme Court consolidated six (6) differnt appeals by the Defendant, but grants no relief to Defendant, affirming the lower courts. The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Gusinsky. STATE v. WINCKLER, 2026 S.D. 19: Defendant was convicted by Jury of “failing to appear for a pretrial conference at the Charles Mix County courthouse,” and also entered a guilty plea to “a separate, unrelated criminal matter, the crime of simple assault after an altercation with another inmate at the Charles Mix County jail.” Defendant appeals both proceedings. Defendant argues, inter alia, a jurisdictional issue, “alleg[ing] that the Charles Mix County courthouse and jail are situated in Indian country, thus depriving the State of subject matter jurisdiction over [him], an enrolled member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe.” The SD Supreme Court disposes of both appeals with this decision. The Court affirms in both, and rejects the jurisdictional argument. The Court also affirming on other issues raised. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Gusinsky. All five justices agree on the result. Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion, casting doubt on the reliability of existing precedent (Bruguier v. Class, 1999 S.D. 122, 599 N.W.2d 364) in regard to the jurisdictional analysis. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Four New Decisions Today

The SD Supreme Court handed down 4 decisionsthis morning: 1) transgender woman denied amended birthcertificate; 2)  doctrine of judicial estoppel endsone part of family dispute over land; 3) DOT employees shielded from law suit;   4) Rule 11 sanctions availableagainst client.    Summaries follow: AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NIELSEN, 2026 S.D.12: Transgender woman sought to amend official birth certificate, so as “to change the sex designation from male to femaleto reflect her current gender identity.”  The trialcourt denied relief.  The SD Supreme Courtaffirmed the denial of relief.  All fivejustices voted to affirm.  The Court’s opinionis authored by Justice DeVaney.  JusticeSalter filed a concurring opinion in which he specifically endorses a concurringopinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alita in a recent decision, [UnitedStates v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495, 559 (2025)].  Chief Justice Jensen endorsed Justice Salter’sconcurring opinion (endorsing Justice Alito). Newly appointed Justice Gusinsky did not participate in this case.    BRYANT v. BRYANT, 2026 S.D. 13: Two brothers areinvolved in litigation against each other and also their mother. The Father isdeceased and divorced from the Mother prior to his death.  The trial court held that the brothers heldtitle jointly, but that Mother’s claim is barred by judicialestoppel.  Noting that a partitionaction involving the brothers is still pending, Mother appeals under SDCL15-6-54(b).  The SD Supreme Court acceptedthe appeal and affirmed.  This decisionis unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. This casewas submitted to the Court less than a month ago, on January 10, 2026.  ESTATE OF SANBORN v. PETERSON, ET AL, 2026 S.D.14: Two girls died in a motor vehicle accident on SD Highway 218.  Claiming that “that the fatal accident resulted from the DOTemployees’ negligent failure to maintain and repair the adjacent gravelshoulder in compliance with governing standards,” Mother of the girls filed suitagainst six DOT employees.  The trialcourt granted summary judgment for Defendants on the basis of the “public duty doctrine.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed but did so onthe basis of “sovereign immunity,” not “public duty.” The SDSupreme Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Salter, with two Justices infull agreement. Chief Justice Jensen filed a brief  concurring opinion.  Retired Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinionin which she asserts the duty imposed on Defendants is a “ministerial duty,” not a “discretionary duty.” Justice Kern’s dissent containscolor photographs depicting an unacceptable drop-off of up to 7 inches in theshoulder.     DISSOLUTION OF HEALY RANCH, INC., 2026 S.D. 15: This litigation is seeminglynever-ending.  In this chapter, the issueis a $240,000 sanction imposed on a litigant under Rule 11.  The SD Supreme Court reverses and “remand[s]for a hearing and reconsideration of the various types of sanctions, and if amonetary sanction is imposed, a determination that includes Bret’s ability topay the monetary sanction.” This is a 3-2 decision, with the Court’s opinion authoredby Retired Justice Kern.  Justice Salterfiles a concurring opinion expressing the belief that monetary sanctions, whilepermissible against an attorney representing a client, are not permissibleagainst a client/litigant only.  Justice DeVaneyconcurs with Justice Salter.  NOTE: TheLitigant perfected his appeal in this matter pro se.  These decisions may be accessed at   http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .  

Minor committed to DOC for terroristic threat at Edgemont School

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Terroristic Threat at school warrants commitment of minor to DOC, Summary follows: INTEREST OF J.A.D., III, 2026 S.D. 11: Student at Edgemont School threatened to go home, get a gun and “threatened to shoot a school counselor, other students, and himself.” Brave and wise Special Ed teacher (my words here) sought to help the student when he wanted to leave school, interviewed the student, and then took action and called 911, resulting in a “soft lockdown” and intervention by law enforcement. In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the State charged the student with “(1) aggravated assault; (2) simple assault; and (3) making a terrorist threat.” The trial court found that the State did not establish (1) aggravated assault, but that the State did establish (2) simple assault and (3) terroristic threat. Trial Court committed the Student to DOC. Student appealed. The SD Supreme Court vacated the (2) simple assault adjudication, but affirmed the (3) terroristic threat adjudication. The Court also affirmed that trial court’s decision to commit the student to DOC. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren, with 3 other justices in full agreement. Justice Salter filed a separate opinion in which he expresses the view that the (2) simply assault adjudication should also be upheld. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Three new Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

TheSD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) compensable damages, condemnationaction; 2) calculation of restitution reversed;  3) Trial court’s award of Rule11 sanctions reversed.   Summariesfollow:  DEP'TOF TRANSPORTATION v. GUSTAFSON, 2026 S.D. 8: This suit addresses the question of exactly what is compensable in acondemnation action.  The property inquestion is around one of the most well-known intersections in South Dakota –I-29 and 41st Street in Sioux Falls. After a determination and payment “compensation for the fair value of the parts of their propertytaken for a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement.” Actual construction associatedwith this project, “also provided for theclosure of the 41st Street and Carolyn Avenue intersection, which eliminatedthe shortest indirect access route to the [landowners'] property from 41stStreet.”  Landowners sought additional compensation forthis “loss of access.”  The State said no.  The trial court held that, “that the closure of this intersectionsubstantially impaired their right of access, and that they sustained an injurypeculiar to their property.”  In a split decision (3-2) among the Justices,the Supreme Court reversed.  The Court’sdecision, (which runs 38 pages and 58 ¶ s), is authored by Justice DeVaney,with Chief Justice Jensen and Justice Salter in full agreement.  Retired Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion,agreed to by Justice Myren. The Dissent would, “affirm the circuitcourt’s order and remand for entry of the stipulated award of $1,329,389, plusinterests and costs, for a total of $1,510,901.”   STATEv. JANES, 2026 S.D. 9: Defendant appeals his conviction for child abuse or crueltyof a minor, his stepchild.  On appealDefendant raises 4 issues related to Evidentiary rulings, in addition to abusein sentencing and the determination of restitution.  He also raises ineffective assistance of counsel.The SD Supreme Court rejects all of Defendant’s arguments, except for thecalculation of restitution related to “the children’s counseling expenses” and remanded for re-evaluation.The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief JusticeJensen.   WELLSFARGO v. MYERS, 2026 S.D. 10:  This is adebt collection action against “Mary Myers.”  There are at least two individuals withthe name “Mary Myers.” The Sheriff served “Mary 2,” not “Mary 1” who would have beenthe correct party.  Attorney for Mary 2contacted Plaintiff’s counsel seeking a dismissal.  When the dismissal was not forthcoming, Mary2 sought rule 11 sanctions which the trial judge awarded in the amount of “$3,662.93 [for Mary 2’s] attorney fees.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed findingthat “conduct was notsanctionable under [the] Rule.”  (The opinion contains a detailed recitationof the relevant events.)  The Court’sdecision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.  Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion.   Thesedecisions may be accessed at  http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .  

8th Circuit Hands Down two D.S.D. decisions today

The Johnson appeal, the reversal, is from the Southern Division. The Cadotte appeal, a per curiam dismissal of appeal, is from the Western Division, Hon. Karen E. Schreier. U.S. v Johnson: Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence on the basis that the routine traffic stop was prolonged beyond a reasonable time, with the detaining officer waiting for a drug dog. Following the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, Defendant pled guilty to a federal drug offense. The 8th Circuit reversed and vacated the conviction. The Court's opinion, authored by Judge Kobes states: [The] Officer prolonged the stop beyond the time needed to address Johnson’s traffic violations. Cf. Peralez, 526 F.3d at 1120 (officer’s “drug interdiction questions,” interspersed with “routine processing of a traffic stop,” unreasonably prolonged the stop). In his own words, it normally takes him five or six minutes to complete and explain a traffic ticket. So if he had diligently written the window tint warning, he would have completed it by 20 minutes and 42 seconds into the stop at the latest and Johnson would have been free to go before the K9 arrived. This is a split decision (2-1), with a dissenting opinion by Judge Stras. U.S. v Cadotte: Defendant pled guilty to child porn and was sentenced 240 months, followed by 5 years of supervised release. The plea agreement contained an "appeal waiver." Nonetheless, Defendant appealed. The 8th Circuit dismissed the appeal, upholding the appeal waiver. This is a per curiam decision and there is no discussion of an examination of the record for other grounds for relief and no indication of an Anders brief. These decisions may be accessed by clicking on the links below: Current Opinions are for Thursday, February 12, 2026 213954P.pdf 02/12/2026 United States v. Alex Johnson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 21-3954 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern 242625U.pdf 02/12/2026 United States v. Tell Cadotte U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 24-2625 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

Three Reversals

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) Defense verdict in personal injury action reversed; 2) 2nd ruling for liability insurer reversed; 3) Expert on “false confessions” rejected. Summaries follows: HAMER v. DUFFY, CORNERSTONE POURED FOUNDATIONS, INC., 2026 S.D. 4: This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The jury ruled against the plaintiffs. The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge committed several errors: 1) error to exclude the testimony of two expert witnesses tendered by Plaintiffs; 2) error in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to “to assert violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations [as set forth at] 49 C.F.R. § 392.3”; 3) error to not instruct jury in regard to of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney KAISER TRUCKING, INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL, 2026 S.D. 5: In this case the tortfeasor’s liability insurer is contesting coverage. In a previous appeal, the SD Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the insurer. Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 S.D. 64, 981 N.W.2d 645. On remand, the trial court once again granted summary judgment for the liability insurer. Once again, the SD Supreme Court reverses. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney. STATE v. HUANTE, 2026 S.D. 6: This is a 1st degree murder prosecution in Rapid City. The Defendant finally gave a confession, after being told that he failed his polygraph and that the investigators “knew” he shot the victim. The Defense claimed a “false confession” and put forward an expert witness to provide testimony on false confessions. The trial court ruled that the “false confessions expert” would be allowed to testify. The State took an intermediate appeal to the SD Supreme Court which reversed the trial judge’s decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a (4-1) decision with the majority opinion authored by Justice Salter on reassignment. Justice Myren filed a dissenting opinion in which he states: [¶90.] In my view, the majority opinion requires [the Defense] to satisfy a standard that is more demanding than Daubert requires and does not apply the appropriate level of deference required by the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to this case. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Med Mal Action Reinstated by SD Supreme Court

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Plaintiffs’ malpractice action reinstated, Summary follows: WALTON v. HURON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, 2026 S.D. 3: This is a medical malpractice action filed against a Doctor and also Huron Regional Medical Center. The patient, having been previously diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, filed this action claiming that he “suffered a hypoxic brain injury from the administration of high dosages of opiates and the failure to properly monitor him while being treated for testicular pain.” His wife joined as co-plaintiff. Plaintiffs relied on a report. Plaintiff relied on the proposed testimony of Dr. Adler, serving as a “causation expert.” The trial court granted Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Adler and then granted Defendants Summary Judgment. The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding as follows: [¶52.] [T]he circuit court abused its discretion in excluding his opinions. In particular, the court failed to apply the Daubert reliability standards to the differential diagnosis methodology, including all of the information and data relied upon by Dr. Adler, to arrive at his opinions. “When a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61, ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d at 415 (citation omitted). We reverse the circuit court’s decision excluding Dr. Adler’s opinions and testimony, including the qEEG evidence. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .