assault by cell phone; multiple rape convictions affirmed

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Assault by cell phone;

 

2)   Multiple rape convictions upheld.

 

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. MCREYNOLDS, 2020 S.D. 65:  This case is summarized in the 1^st paragraph of the opinion:

 

[¶1.] A jury convicted Josephine Rae McReynolds of simple assault on a law enforcement officer. McReynolds appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying her motion for judgment of acquittal and instructing the jury on the legality of the initial encounter between McReynolds and law enforcement. McReynolds also argues that the circuit court violated her confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment during the subsequent habitual offender trial by admitting evidence of McReynolds’s prior felony conviction without providing her an opportunity to cross-examine the custodian of the record. We affirm.

 

The Court’s decision to affirm is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. 

 

Interestingly, the Defendant recorded her encounter with the arresting officers with her cell phone and one of the multiple counts of assault included striking a police officer in the head with her cell phone. 

 

STATE v. SNODGRASS, 2020 S.D. 66:  The Defendant was convicted, by jury trial, of

 

eight counts of first-degree child rape in violation of SDCL 22-22-1(1) and four counts of sexual contact with a child in violation of SDCL 22-22-7.

 

Afterward,

 

The [trial] court imposed a twenty-year penitentiary sentence for the rape conviction in Count 1, ten year consecutive sentences on each of the rape convictions in Counts 2 through 8, and four fifteen-year sentences, with five years suspended, on each sexual contact conviction. The sentences for sexual contact were imposed consecutive to the rape convictions, but concurrent to one another. 

 

This appeal addresses Defendant’s assertions:

 

Snodgrass appeals, arguing the indictment failed to sufficiently allege the dates, times, and locations of the crimes charged so that he could prepare an adequate defense. Snodgrass also claims that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting certain other act evidence, admitting the child victim’s hearsay statements, and overruling his objections that the State’s expert opinions improperly vouched for the testimony of the child witness. Finally, Snodgrass argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and by imposing sentences that violated the Eighth Amendment.

 

The SD Supreme Court rejected these assertions and affirmed in a unanimous decision (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Jensen.  Material quoted above is taken from ¶¶ 1 & 19.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

) Yankton County prevails in dispute with Avera Hospital relating to medical care costs for patients at HSC.

 

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

 

1)    Yankton County prevails in dispute with Avera Hospital relating to medical care costs for patients at HSC. 

 

Summary follows:

 

SACRED HEART HEALTH SERVICES v. YANKTON COUNTY, 2020 S.D. 64:  This history and result on appeal in this dispute is summarized in ¶1 of the opinion:

 

[¶1.] Sacred Heart Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Avera Sacred Heart Hospital (Hospital), filed a declaratory judgment action against Yankton County (County) seeking a declaration of the County’s liability and reimbursement for charges for the medical care and treatment of patients subject to an emergency hold, under SDCL chapter 27A-10. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court entered a memorandum decision in favor of the Hospital. The County objected and filed a motion to reconsider. After a second hearing on the motions for summary judgment, the circuit court issued a second memorandum decision in favor of the County and entered a corresponding order and judgment. The Hospital appeals. We affirm.

 

The hospital’s choice of declaratory judgment and theory of quantum meruit failed.  The concluding paragraph of the opinion provides the legal basis for this result:

 

The circuit court did not err in holding SDCL chapter 28-13 is the proper mechanism for the Hospital to obtain reimbursement from the County for medical costs associated with the twenty-three patients in the involuntary commitment process.

 

This decision is unanimous, 5-0, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Gilbertson.  Circuit Judge Myren sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

Dissolution of Buffalo Chip as SD Municipality Affirmed

 

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

 

1. Dissolution of Buffalo Chip as a SD Municipality affirmed

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. BUFFALO CHIP, 2020 S.D. 63:

 

At the request of the State, acting through the Attorney General, the lower court dissolved the municipal incorporation of Buffalo Chip.   In making this holding, the lower court found that the State was authorized to seek dissolution and the lower court also held that Buffalo Chip failed to satisfy the residency requirements of SDCL 9-3-1 which, at the relevant time, provided, “No municipality shall be incorporated which contains less than 100 legal residents or less than 30 voters.” 

 

Buffalo Chip appealed.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in today’s decision. 

 

As to the 1^st issue (authority of the state to challenge), the Court’s decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  The Court holds, “We conclude that the circuit court properly allowed the State to institute this action against Buffalo Chip under SDCL 21-28-2(3) and SDCL 9-3-20.”

 

As to the 2^nd issue (residency requirements), the Court’s decision came down to a 3-1-1 ruling, with Chief Justice Gilbertson being the lone dissenter.   The opinion of the Court is authored by Justice DeVaney, with Justices Salter and Jensen in full agreement. Justice Kern filed a special concurring opinion.  Chief Justice Gilbertson would reverse in favor of Buffalo Chip on the basis that incorporation as a municipality could be achieved under the statute because there were 30 or more voters, even though Buffalo Chip lacked 100 residents.

 

NOTE:  The statute has subsequently been amended to more restrictive requirements which currently include, “A municipality may not be incorporated unless it contains as least one hundred legal residents and at least forty-five registered voters.”

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

feed lot litigation, motions to suppress, divorce decree

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

1)    Feed lot litigation reversed and remanded;

 

2)   State prevails on intermediate appeal (motions to suppress);

 

3)   Divorce decree and contempt proceeding affirmed, with appellate attorney fees assessed against pro se Wife

 

Summaries follow:

POWERS v. TURNER CNTY., 2020 S.D. 60:  This litigation arises out of a proposed feed lot in Turner County.  This 1^st paragraph describes the posture of this litigation and appeal, as follows:

[¶1.] After the Turner County Board of Adjustment approved an application for the construction and operation of a concentrated animal feeding operation, two landowners appealed the decision by petitioning the circuit court for a writ of certiorari under SDCL 11-2-61. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, concluding that they failed to show they were persons aggrieved and, thus, lacked standing to appeal under SDCL 11-2-61. We reverse and remand.

Paragraph 23 provides the SD Supreme Court’s analysis which resulted in reversal, as follows:

[¶23.] From our review of the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the Petitioners, we conclude that the Petitioners have set forth sufficient specific facts to show “a personal and pecuniary loss not suffered by taxpayers in general, falling upon [a petitioner] in [an] individual capacity, and not merely in [the] capacity as a taxpayer and member of the body politic of the county[.]” See Cable, 2009 S.D. 59, ¶ 26, 769 N.W.2d at 827 (quoting Barnum, 53 S.D. 47, 220 N.W. at 137–38). First, unlike the plaintiff in Cable, the Petitioners did not rest upon mere allegations and legal argument. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 34, 39. They substantiated their allegations with expert opinions rather than relying on mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Second, although the Schmeichels argue that the Right to Farm Covenant establishes that the Petitioners’ alleged inconveniences and discomforts are not personal or unique, namely because they are similarly suffered by other residents of the county, the Petitioners offered evidence in support of their allegation that the proposed CAFO will injure them beyond the inconveniences and discomforts related in the Covenant.

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

STATE v. OSTBY & OLMSTED, 2020 S.D. 61: Felony drug charges were filed against co-habitants in Deadwood.  The trial court sustained Motions to Suppress relating to evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, on the basis of alleged defects in the affidavit filed in support of the application for the warrant.   The State perfected intermediate appeals which were consolidated on appeal.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, upholding the affidavit and search warrant.  This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. 

EVENS v. EVENS, 2020 S.D. 62:  Acting pro se, Wife appeals adverse divorce decree and the trial court’s finding Wife in contempt.  The nature of the lower court’s decision and appeal is described in the 1^st paragraph of the opinion as follows:

[¶1.] Rachel Evens appeals the circuit court’s judgment and decree of     divorce entered on the grounds of extreme cruelty as well as its determinations regarding child custody, property division, child support, and attorney fees and costs. Rachel also appeals the court’s subsequent contempt order against her. We affirm.

The post decree contempt proceeding related to Wife’s refusal to sign and deliver deeds, stock certificates and vehicle titles over to Husband.

In regard to Wife’s efforts to be represented by counsel, Paragraph 10 of the Court’s opinion reports:

[¶10.] During this pretrial period, Rachel was represented by four different attorneys, each of whom subsequently moved to withdraw shortly after noting their appearances. Rachel represented herself at trial and on appeal.

The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  Additionally, the Court awarded Husband appellate attorney fees in the amount of $30,000.

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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