Intentional Property Damage Conviction Reversed

 

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

 

1. Intentional property damage conviction reversed

 

STATE v. VANDYKE, 2023 S.D. 9: New wife and former wife had an unpleasant encounter in process of transferring minor children from one to the other.  Former wife (mother of children) pounded her fist on windshield of new wife’s car, causing damage.  State filed charge of intentional property damage.  Trial was to the Court, without jury. Trial judge found former wife guilty.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

 

[¶26.] Intentional damage to property, as described in SDCL 22-34-1, requires the State to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to cause damage to the affected property. It is not a strict liability offense for which a defendant who caused damage is necessarily guilty, and all appearances suggest that the circuit court erroneously accepted the State’s argument that it was. This error likely affected the outcome of this case by compelling a conviction solely as a consequence of the damage [former wife] caused. We reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

 

The Court’s ruling is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

8th Circuit holds SD's statutes unconstitutional for both initiation of statutes and amendment of the state constitution

 

In Heidelberger v Noem, handed down this morning, the 8^th Circuit has ruled on the constitutional challenges to SD’s regulations regarding the opportunity to initiate new statutes and to initiate constitutional amendments.  The trial court had held that the provisions of SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes) were too restrictive and in violation of the 1^st Amendment.  With respect to SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution), the trial court upheld its provisions.  The 8^th Circuit, considering cross-appeals, upheld the trial court’s ruling as to unconstitutionality of SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes), but reversed as to SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution).  As per this decision, the 8^th Circuit holds that BOTH  SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes) and SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution) are unconstitutional, in violation of the 1^st Amendment. 

 

The 8^th Circuit further held that the trial court’s creation of a “a new deadline of six months before the general election” for SDCL § 2-1-1.2 was inappropriate and remanded for its removal.

 

SD Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences of 60 years each

 

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

 

1. Consecutive sentences of 60 years upheld

 

STATE v. MANNING, 2023 S.D. 7:  Defendant was convicted by jury of 2 counts of 1^st degree rape and 2 counts of sexual contact with child under 16.  The trial court sentenced Defendant to two 60 year terms in prison, to run consecutively.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  Circuit Judge Rasmussen sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Myren. 

 

Each of the following issues were addressed and resolved adversely to the Defendant:

 

1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Manning’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the two rape charges.

2. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Manning’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the two sexual contact charges in violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

3. Whether there was improper bolstering of witnesses at trial by the circuit court and the prosecution.

4. Whether the circuit court improperly closed the courtroom during the jury selection phase of Manning’s trial.

5. Whether Manning’s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment or constitutes an abuse of discretion.

6. Whether Manning received ineffective assistance of counsel.

7. Whether Manning was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the alleged errors

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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