The
SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:
- Vulnerable Adult Subject to Abuse Protected;
- Criminal convictions affirmed;
- Wind Farm Proposal prevails, Deuel County;
- Wind Farm Proposal prevails, South Dakota’s PUC.
Summaries
follows:
BRUGGEMAN
v. RAMOS, 2022 S.D. 16: This is an
action brought on behalf of a “vulnerable adult subject to abuse,” approximate
age of 76 at the time of this opinion.
The Defendant is a former primary care-giver who was acting with power
of attorney. The trial court granted
relief, entered a restraining order against Defendant, ordered the Defendant to
return $296,500 to the plaintiff, and also awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff
Black Hills Advocate LLC. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s ruling, but denied appellate
attorney fees to Black Hills Advocate LLC.
The Court’s decision is a 3-1-1 ruling, with opinion authored by Justice
DeVaney. Justice Kern dissented on the
sole issue of appellate attorneys, agreeing with the majority on all other
issues. Chief Justice Jensen dissented
because the trial court quashed a subpoena by Defendant for the alleged
“vulnerable adult” to appear in court and testify. According to the dissent, “The circuit court quashed the subpoena for perhaps the
most crucial witness in this case.”
STATE
v. RED CLOUD, 2022 S.D. 17: This
criminal appeal is described in the opening paragraphs of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] A jury convicted Anthony
Red Cloud II (Red Cloud) of burglary and two counts of simple assault arising
from a home invasion. Joe Zueger (Zueger) encountered Red Cloud shortly after
he broke into Zueger’s home. Red Cloud fled the home and was arrested later
that morning on another charge. Zueger identified him as the intruder during a
one-person show-up identification. Although Red Cloud moved to suppress this
identification, the circuit court denied his motion and the evidence was
received at trial. The State also introduced the results of DNA testing through
expert testimony but inadvertently failed to send the expert’s report to the
jury for their deliberations. Red Cloud moved for a mistrial on this basis,
which the circuit court denied.
[¶2.] Red Cloud was charged
and tried on a part II habitual offender information alleging two prior felony
convictions. Red Cloud moved for judgment of acquittal following the State’s
case-in-chief on the basis that the State failed to prove that Red Cloud had
been released from supervision for the prior felonies within the past 15 years.
The circuit court denied this motion, and the jury found Red Cloud to be a
habitual offender. Red Cloud appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion
to suppress the show-up identification, his motion for a mistrial because of
the omission of the DNA exhibit from jury deliberations, and his motion for
judgment of acquittal in the habitual offender trial. We affirm.
The
Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
EHLEBRACHT
v. DEUEL CNTY. PLN. COMM’N and CROWNED RIDGE WIND II, LLC, 2022 S.D. 18: Neighboring landowners challenged Applicant
(seeking to establish a Wind Energy System) for a Special Exception Permit from
the Deuel County Board of Adjustment.
Board of Adjustment ruled in favor of the Applicant’s proposed Wind
Energy System. Circuit Court upheld the
decision. The SD Supreme Court affirmed
in a unanimous (5-0) decision, with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Former Chief Justice Gilbertson participated
on this case which was submitted to the Court on November 16, 2020.
NOTE:
The appellants in this case are the same appellants in the next case which
upholds the decision by South Dakota’s PUC.
EHLEBRACHT
v. CROWNED RIDGE WIND II, LLC and S.D. PUB. UTIL. COMM’N, 2022 S.D. 19:
Applicant sought permit from South Dakota’s Public Utility Commission (PUC), “to
construct a large scale wind energy farm in northeast South Dakota.” PUC approved. Circuit Court Approved. The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous
(5-0) decision, with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Circuit Judge Anderson
participate in this case, in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen.
NOTE:
The appellants in this case are the same appellants in the preceding case which
upheld the decision by the Deuel County Board of Adjustment.
These
decisions may be accessed at
