The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Defendant loses to “open-door doctrine,”
notwithstanding a change in the law;
- Certified question on insurance
coverage answered with 3-2 ruling
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. NOHAVA, 2021 S.D. 34: The opening
paragraph of the Court’s opinion nicely summarizes the result and holding in
the lower court and on appeal:
[¶1.] After a confidential
informant purchased methamphetamine from Coye Nohava during a controlled drug
buy, a grand jury indicted Nohava on one count of distributing a controlled
substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance. Nohava was
convicted on both counts after a jury trial. The evidence at trial centered on
the testimony of the confidential informant. Nohava appeals, asserting the
circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the informant to testify about
other act evidence after finding Nohava opened the door to such testimony.
Nohava also contends the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with Justice DeVaney authoring the Court’s
opinion. Chief Justice Jensen filed a
brief concurring opinion in which he addresses the fact that the law has
changed in regard to the “open-door doctrine” which is now more limited,
stating in ¶ 36:
The evidence of
[Defendant’s] assault of [the female confidential informant] may have violated
this rule, but given the state of our open-door doctrine at the time of trial,
there was no abuse of discretion.
SAPIENZA
v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, 2021 S.D. 35:
This dispute revolves around the seemingly simple question as to whether
or not damages incurred as a result of the insured’s compliance with a state
court injunction constitutes compensable damages under the insured’s Homeowners
Policy and the insured’s Personal Liability Policy. The facts in (involving the new construction
of a home and its impact on a neighbor’s home) trace back to 2014 and include
litigation in South Dakota state court, with a prior opinion by the SD Supreme
Court in 2018. Thereafter the insureds “filed
suit in federal district court against [their insurer] alleging a number of
claims, including breach of contract based on [their insurer’s] failure to
provide coverage for the costs the [insureds] incurred to tear down their newly
constructed home.” The Federal Court
certified the issue (“Do the costs incurred by the [insureds] to comply with the
injunction constitute covered ‘damages’ under the Policies such that Liberty
Mutual must indemnify the [insureds] for these costs?”) to the SD Supreme Court. The case was orally argued in the SD Supreme
Court before the Pandemic, on November 5, 2019.
Authorship of the Court’s opinion was re-assigned some 17 months
later, April 9, 2021. Today’s decision answers the question in the
affirmative, holding yes (there is insurance coverage for these damages). The Court’s ruling is a 3-2 decision, with
Justice DeVaney authoring the majority decision (by virtue of the
re-assignment). Justice Salter filed a
dissenting opinion, as to which Chief Justice Jensen joins.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
