Two Criminal Cases decided today; Convictions Affirmed by SD Supreme Court

 The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding inter alia: 

1)    2^nd degree rape conviction affirmed; 

2)   Aggravated and simple assault convictions affirmed.

Summaries follow:

STATE v. TAYLOR, 2020 S.D. 48:  Defendant was sentenced to 50 years in prison with 20 years suspended following jury conviction of 2nd degree rape.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting numerous assertions of error (“1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of Taylor’s two prior alleged sexual assaults. 2. Whether the admission of the other act evidence violated Taylor’s constitutional rights under the Double Jeopardy and Due Process Clauses. 3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Taylor’s motion for a mistrial. 4. Whether the circuit court erred when it denied Taylor’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. 5. Whether the circuit court’s admission of the forensic laboratory reports by affidavit under SDCL 23-3-19.3 resulted in prejudicial error. 6. Whether Taylor’s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment”).  This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Jensen.

 

STATE v. BRYANT, 2020 S.D. 49:  Criminal defendant, having been found guilty by jury of multiple counts of aggravated and simple assault, was sentenced to 12 years in prison, with 3 years suspended and he was also ordered to pay Medicaid $31,246.69 as restitution for the victim’s  medical expenses.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

Two Decisions this Morning by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

1)    Wife prevails in contempt proceeding against ex-Husband;

2)   State of South Dakota denied recovery of clean-up funds related to underground oil tanks

 

Summaries follows:

 

FARMER v. FARMER, 2020 S.D. 46:  Wife brought this contempt proceeding against ex-Husband for the purpose of enforcing property settlement agreement incorporated into 2014 divorce decree.  Trial court found ex-Husband in contempt and that he owed Wife $331,184.81.  Trial court further held, “To satisfy this debt and purge himself of contempt, [ex-Husband is] ordered [to] convey to [wife] his membership interests in certain entities and his ownership interest in certain properties."  Trial court also awarded Wife attorney fees.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, awarding Wife additional appellate attorney fees of $29,172.62, the full amount of Wife’s request.  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.  The contempt proceeding was initiated in the trial court in 2016, but not finally resolved until August, 2018, with numerous hearings held in the interim.

S.D. PETROLEUM RELEASE COMPENSATION FUND v. BP, 2020 S.D. 47: The State of South Dakota sought recovery of clean-up funds related to “environmental contamination from underground petroleum storage tanks” at 27 locations in South Dakota.  The trial court denied recovery to the State and the SD Supreme Court affirmed.  The first 2 paragraphs of the opinion explain this litigation and result as follows:

[¶1.] The State of South Dakota and the South Dakota Petroleum Release Compensation Fund (Fund) sought to recover payments made to the predecessor and subsidiary companies of BP plc (hereafter jointly referred to as “BP”) for the costs of cleaning up environmental contamination from underground petroleum storage tanks (UST) at 27 BP sites in South Dakota.1 The Fund also sought to recover payments made to third parties for cleanup costs at 19 other UST sites in South Dakota. The Fund referred to these latter claims as “indirect claims,” alleging that BP was responsible for cleanup costs because it had previously owned or operated the USTs at the 19 sites. 

[¶2.] The circuit court initially granted BP’s motion for summary judgment on all but one of the 19 indirect claims, determining the claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Later, the circuit court granted BP’s motion for summary judgment on the Fund’s remaining claims against BP. The Fund appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred in dismissing its claims. The Fund also argues the circuit court abused its discretion in denying its motion for discovery sanctions. We affirm.

This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Jensen.  Circuit Judge Sabers sat on this case, in lieu of Justice DeVaney who was the trial judge. 

These decisions may be accessed at

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .