The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Labor dispute, Yankton Police Department;
2) 3rd 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 .
