The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding inter alia:
1) Amendment A invalid
Summary follows:
THOM & MILLER v. BARNETT et al./ELECTION CONTEST AS TO
AMENDMENT A, 2021 S.D. 65: Today the SD
Supreme Court announced its ruling on Amendment A. The Court holds, by a vote of 4-1, that
Amendment is invalid because it violated the single subject requirement in the
South Dakota Constitution.
This decision may be accessed at
The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding inter alia:
1) Assault conviction
affirmed, with Court establishing foundational evidentiary requirements for
video from automatic surveillance system
Summary follows:
STATE v. REEVES, 2021 S.D. 64:
Defendant “was convicted and sentenced
for assault by a jail inmate – contact with bodily fluids, simple assault
against an inmate, and threatening a law enforcement officer,” for behavior exhibited at the Minnehaha County
Jail. Over Defendant’s objection as to a
lack of proper evidentiary foundation, the trial court admitted into evidence
video collected from video surveillance system utilized in the jail, a system
which runs continuously. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed and, in so doing, addressed an issue not previously decided by
the Court, to wit:
… the
foundational requirements for admitting video footage under SDCL 19-19-901(a)
when a human operator is not available to testify to the accuracy of the scene
depicted in the video.
This decision reviews approaches utilized by other
jurisdictions and ultimately adopts a “flexible
fact-based rule” described as follows:
[¶19.] The
flexible, fact-based rule we adopt today permits the party offering the
evidence, and the party against whom it is offered, a fair opportunity to
address with the circuit court whether sufficient foundational evidence has
been presented to authenticate a particular photograph or video. If a circuit
court determines that there is adequate foundation for the admissibility of the
video, any further “concerns that the defendant ha[s] regarding the
surveillance procedures, and the method of storing and reproducing the video
material, [are] properly the subject of cross-examination and affect[ ] the
weight, not the admissibility, of the video.” Stangle, 97 A.3d at 639
(quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice Kern.
This decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding inter alia:
1) Reversal of division of
property issues
2) Reversal of juvenile
placement with DOC
Summaries follows:
CONTI v. CONTI, 2021 S.D. 62: In this divorce proceeding Wife
appeals, asserting error relating to the valuation of and division of property,
as well as the determination of an equalizing payment. The SD Supreme Court reversed and
remanded. The Court found that the
valuation of the marital home was clearly erroneous and that there was a lack
of specific findings in regard to the inclusion of alleged non-marital property
as marital. This decision is unanimous
(5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
INTEREST OF D.S., 2021 S.D. 63: This is an appeal from the
trial court’s adjudication of a 17 year old of 1st degree rape and
subsequent custodial order of commitment with the Department of
Corrections. The SD Supreme Court
reversed and remanded. The situation is
summarized in the initial paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.]
Seventeen-year-old D.S. was adjudicated of first-degree rape. Prior to the
dispositional hearing, a psychologist conducted a psychosexual evaluation of
D.S., after which he concluded D.S. had a low risk of recidivism and
recommended community-based outpatient treatment. The circuit court committed
D.S. to the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) pursuant to SDCL
26-8C-7. D.S. appeals, arguing the circuit court erred by failing to apply the
statutory requirements for DOC placement under SDCL 26-8C-7(10).
The reversal and remand is described in the final paragraph of
the opinion:
[¶35.] We
reverse and remand for the circuit court to make findings on the viability of a
community-based supervision and treatment alternative and to reimpose a
disposition consistent with the requirements of SDCL 26-8C-7.
This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief
Justice Jensen.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .