The
SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:
- Termination of mother’s parental rights upheld;
- Estate Dispute over Wrongful Death action;
- Community Caretaker Doctrine not fulfilled for
warrantless search/seizure;
- 14 year old sentence to DOC upheld.
Summaries
follows:
INTEREST
OF L.N., 2022 S.D. 8: In an A & N
proceeding initiated by DSS, the Parental rights of Indian Child were terminated
by the trial court. Mother appealed
asserting, inter alia, that her due process rights were violated because
the termination decree was entered at a time when she had been adjudicated
mentally incompetent. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief
Justice Jensen.
ESTATE
OF JONES, 2022 S.D. 9: This is an intermediate appeal permitted in a dispute
involving a deceased person. The
dispute, relating to the prosecution of a wrongful death action, is described
as follows:
[¶1.] Dale Dean Jones died
intestate. The circuit court appointed Dale’s wife, Lisa Jones, as his estate’s
personal representative. Dale’s adult children, Douglas (Doug) and Jessica
Jones, subsequently petitioned for the appointment of a special administrator
to pursue a wrongful death claim for Dale’s estate. They also served discovery
requests on Lisa seeking information pertaining to their petition. Lisa refused
to answer the discovery and filed a motion for a protective order. Doug and Jessica
filed a motion to compel. Following a hearing noticed for the discovery
motions, the court denied the petition for special administrator and determined
the discovery issues were moot. This Court granted Doug and Jessica’s petition
for intermediate appeal. Doug and Jessica argue that the petition for special
administrator was not properly noticed for hearing and the circuit court abused
its discretion by failing to address the discovery motions before deciding the
petition for special administrator.
The
SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding:
[¶33.] The circuit court has
discretion to determine if a special administrator is “necessary to preserve
the estate or to secure its proper administration including its administration
in circumstances where a general personal representative cannot or should not
act.” SDCL 29A-3-614; see also In re Est. of Hutman, 705 N.E.2d 1060, 1064–65
(Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (“No one can serve as a special administratrix whom the
trial court finds unsuitable. A person may be deemed unsuitable by reason of an
interest in pending litigation, or bias or prejudice[.]”). In determining who
shall pursue a wrongful death claim on behalf of an estate, the “[circuit]
court must have confidence that the person will demonstrate the utmost loyalty,
impartiality, and integrity, and that the person does not have an interest in
pending litigation, or bias or prejudice, such that the appointment would be
adverse to the interest of those to be served by the appointment.” Hutman, 705
N.E.2d at 1065. We cannot say that Doug and Jessica’s assertions, if supported
by evidence revealed through discovery, would not affect the circuit court’s
decision on whether a special administrator should be appointed. By granting
the motion for protective order and denying the motion to compel, the circuit
court denied Doug and Jessica the opportunity to develop and present evidence
that may be relevant to their Petition.
[¶34.] We reverse and vacate
the circuit court’s order denying the Petition, denying the motion to compel,
and granting the motion for a protective order. We #29604-18-remand for further
proceedings directing the circuit court to address the discovery issues before
addressing the merits of the Petition.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
STATE
v. GRASSROPE, 2022 S.D. 10: In this
criminal case involving charges for DUI and driving while suspended, the
Magistrate Court sustained a Motion to Suppress evidence filed by the
Defendant. The State appealed arguing
that the police officer’s actions were justified under the “community
caretaker” doctrine which is described as follows:
[¶9.] [Warrantless searches
and seizures will be upheld where] local law enforcement officers often “engage
in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking
functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition
of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”
The
SD Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of evidence in a unanimous (5-0)
ruling with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
This
opinion reviews the three instances in the Court’s history where the “community
caretaker” doctrine had been upheld in situations involving: 1) an
excessively slow-moving vehicle, 2) a parked vehicle with engine running and
driver apparently passed out or sleeping, and 3) a situation where an occupant
of vehicle reasonably appeared to be a domestic disturbance victim. The State asserted that the facts in this
case fell within the purview of the 3rd scenario, but the Court
disagreed.
INTEREST
OF D.S., 2022 S.D. 11: Trial court sentenced this 14 year old male to the
Department of Corrections, notwithstanding the recommendation of an expert that
he be treated in the community. (“… [underlying diagnosis]
by Dr. Ertz [that D.S. suffered] with Childhood Onset Type Conduct Disorder,
Asperger’s Disorder, Borderline Intellectual Functioning, and Bipolar Disorder.”)
The
SD Supreme Court affirmed, with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
Justice
Salter filed an opinion which concurs in part and dissents in part. Justice Salter’s opinion takes issue with the
Majority Opinion’s language, found in ¶23, that “[i]n
most cases, the existence of a viable alternative will preclude DOC commitment
from being the least restrictive option.”
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
