1 new decision, SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia: 

 

1. “State’s Duty To Preserve Evidence” analyzed;

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. ZEPHIER, 2020 S.D. 54: This case is summarized in ¶ 1 of the opinion as follows:

 

Trevor Zephier appeals his conviction for first-degree burglary and grand theft, arguing the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence that was returned to the owner before trial. Zephier also alleges the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for expert fingerprint testing. We affirm.

 

This opinion contains a lengthy discussion concerning constitutional issues related to the State’s Duty to Preserve Evidence, in addition to a discussion the statutory requirement (SDCL 23A-37-15) imposed upon the State that the Defendant first be given notice of the State’s intention to return property to the owner.  The Court ultimately concluded, inter alia, that the evidence failed to possess exculpatory value. 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Two New Decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Labor dispute, Yankton Police Department;

2)   3^rd degree rape conviction upheld, causing 3-2 split within Court

 

Summaries follows:

 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE v. CITY OF YANKTON, 2020 S.D. 52:  This dispute is summarized in ¶ 1 of the opinion which follows:

 

The Department of Labor determined that sergeants in the Yankton Police Department are ineligible for membership in a collective bargaining unit because they have authority to hire or effectively recommend hiring decisions. The circuit court reversed that decision on appeal, determining sergeants did not have that authority. The City of Yankton appeals the circuit court’s decision. We reverse.

 

The Court’s concluding paragraph, ¶ 27, explains further:

 

The circuit court erred in disturbing the Department’s findings and conclusions and determining that sergeants have no authority to hire or effectively recommend hiring decisions. The record supports the Department’s determination that YPD sergeants are ineligible for membership in the collective bargaining unit because they use independent judgment to hire or effectively recommend hiring. We therefore reverse the circuit court’s decision on this point. Because sergeants do not qualify as public employees eligible for membership in collective bargaining units, we forgo reviewing whether the sergeants have authority to suspend or discipline or effectively recommend suspension or discipline.

 

This decision is unanimous by the Court, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Gilbertson.

 

STATE v. JACKSON, 2020 S.D. 53:

 

Defendant was convicted by jury of 3rd degree rape in regard to a 56 year old victim who suffered dementia and who was residing a 24 hour care facility.   The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s arguments on appeal.  The Court’s affirmance is unanimous as to result (5-0), but otherwise split (3-2).  The majority opinion is authored by Justice DeVaney and it represents the views of Justice Salter and Justice Jensen.  Circuit Judge Myron sat on this case in lieu of Justice Kern.

 

Chief Justice Gilbertson filed a concurring opinion in regard to the issue as to whether the State must show knowledge by the Defendant of the victim’s lack of capacity in the application of SDCL 22-22-1(3).  Chief Justice Gilbertson expresses the belief that the Court should expressly overrule State v. Jones, 2011 S.D. 60, 804 N.W.2d 409 (state must prove defendant knew or reasonably should have known the victim was too intoxicated to consent).  Circuit Judge Myron agrees with Chief Justice Gilbertson on this issue.   

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

SD Supreme Court hands down 1 decision today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:  

 

1)    Divorce court reversed for setting aside “partially gifted” land in favor of H

 Summary follows: 

FIELD v. FIELD, 2020 S.D. 51:  During their marriage, H & W received farmland from H's relative at significantly discounted purchase price.  In this divorce proceeding, the trial court treated the transfer as a "partial gift" made solely to H.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that, “entire value of the [farmland] should be subject to equitable division.”  This opinion confirms that existing SD rule the grant of an interest in real estate jointly to both H & W, “can be convincing evidence of the realty's status as marital property,” and it also recognizes, "that spouses can provide valuable contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of inherited or gifted property by acting as homemakers or working separately to assist the other spouse in maintaining inherited or gifted property." 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

This decision may be accessed at

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

 

 

 

Nonresident convicted of ordinance affecting water supply of city

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:  

 

1)    Nonresident convicted of ordinance affecting water supply of city

 

Summary follows:

 

CITY OF RAPID CITY v. SCHAUB, 2020 S.D. 50:   Pro Se Defendant, living outside the city limits, appeals his conviction for “operating an onsite wastewater system without a permit.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the conviction rejecting three arguments: 1) that the ordinance was applied in an ex post facto manner; 2) that the City Ordinance was preempted by state law/regulations; and 3) that the City lacked authority to exercise police powers outside of its city limits (upholding statutory grant of authority under SDCL 9-32-8 for cities to protect water supplies “within one mile of the limits of the municipality.”)  This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

This decision may be accessed at

 

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