The
SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:
- “Stand Your Ground Law” not retroactive;
- Professional negligence claim time barred:
- Damage award upheld; and
- Child Custody decision upheld.
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. SMITH, 2023 S.D. 32: South Dakota’s
newly enacted “Stand Your Ground Law” is not to be applied retroactively. The criminal convictions in this case are
affirmed. (Defendant was sentenced to
life without parole, and also to three sentences of 25 years to run
consecutively.) The facts and issues are
reported in the opening paragraph:
[¶1.] A Facebook feud involving
Ramon Smith’s (Smith) sister, her girlfriend, and another family led to a
series of altercations that culminated in Smith firing a weapon, killing a
bystander and wounding two others. Smith claims he acted in self-defense.
Following a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced for second-degree murder
and three counts of aggravated assault. Smith appeals, arguing that he was
entitled to a pretrial determination of statutory immunity under SDCL
22-18-4.8, a statute which became effective during the pendency of his case. He
also argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by receiving evidence
that he could not legally possess a firearm, erred by not granting a judgment
of acquittal, and abused its discretion by not granting a mistrial. We affirm.
The
Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice
Jensen.
HOVEN
v. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC., 2023 S.D. 33:
This is an action asserting professional negligence against a Defendant
engaged in “surveying and engineering services.” After the trial court rendered summary
judgments which partially favored the plaintiffs and the defendant in regard to
the applicable statutes (SDCL 15-2-13 and SDCL 15-2A-3), the SD Supreme Court
granted discretionary appeals sought by each side. The final result, by the Supreme Court, is
that Plaintiffs’ cause of action is time-barred. The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
WRIGHT
v. TEMPLE, 2023 S.D. 34: This is an action for damages to an airplane. The SD
Supreme Court previously addressed this dispute in Wright v. Temple ,
2021 S.D. 15, 956 N.W.2d 436. The trial
court’s action on remand and the issues considered in this appeal are set forth
in the opening paragraph of the opinion:
[¶1.] On remand for a new trial on the limited
issue of damages, the circuit court issued a memorandum decision awarding
Wright $131,735.67 in damages, prejudgment interest, and costs. Temple appeals,
challenging the court’s damages award and decision to award prejudgment
interest. In response to an order to show cause by this Court, Temple and
Wright also address the question whether we lack appellate jurisdiction because
Temple did not serve the notice of the appeal and docketing statement on a
third-party defendant.
In
today’s ruling the Court concludes it has jurisdiction and affirms the lower
court. The decision is unanimous (5-0),
with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
HARWOOD
v. CHAMLEY, 2023 S.D. 35: This is a child custody dispute between unmarried
parents. The trial court’s decision to
award primary custody to Mother is affirmed by the SD Supreme Court. In so doing, the Court rejected the Father’s
arguments:
[¶17.] [Father] appeals,
challenging the circuit court’s decision designating [Mother] as the children’s
primary custodial parent and rejecting his proposal to continue the interim
week on/week off custody arrangement. As indicated below, [Father] does not
allege that the court’s findings are unsupported by evidence but rather claims
that the court overlooked the presumption in SDCL 25-4-45.5 [custody denied to
abusive parent], accorded dispositive weight to [Mother’s] role as the primary
caretaker, and abdicated its judicial responsibility by, in his view,
indiscriminately accepting [the custody evaluator’s] evaluation and testimony.
The
Court’s decision (affirming the trial court) is unanimous (5-0), with opinion
authored by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
