The
SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
- Evidence sufficient for 1st degree robbery
conviction;
- Conditional Use Permit requirement upheld;
- Polygraph evidenced tendered by Defendant inadmissible.
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. LONG SOLDIER, 2023 S.D. 37: The sole issue on appeal in the criminal case is
sufficiency of evidence. The facts and
results are set forth in the opening paragraph:
[¶1.] Damen Long Soldier entered
a casino and held up the cashier on duty at gun point. He pulled her behind the
counter and struck her on the head with a pistol, causing her to fall to the
floor. After failing to open the cash register or find money in her pockets, he
took her purse from a chair in the office and fled. Long Soldier was convicted
of first-degree robbery and sentenced to forty years. On appeal, he argues that
the circuit court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because
the evidence was insufficient to meet the elements of the offense and sustain
the conviction. We affirm.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice Kern.
DAKOTA
CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. HANSON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, 2023 S.D. 38: This dispute is between the New Owner of a
quarry and the County Zoning Commission.
The Zoning Commission held that because the area was zoned agricultural,
the New Owner would need to acquire a Conditional Use Permit (CPU) “in
order to extract sand, gravel, and rock from the site.” New Owner asserted that a CPU was not
necessary “because the operation of the quarry was a continuing prior
nonconforming use.” The Zoning Commission held
that a CPU was required and granted same, making the CPU subject to “specified
conditions.” The trial court, acting on
the New Owner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, agreed with the Zoning
Commission. The SD Supreme Court
affirmed, agreeing with both the trial court and the Zoning Commission. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion
by Chief Justice Jensen.
STATE
v. BANKS, 2023 S.D. 39: Defendant pled guilty to 1st degree
manslaughter and was sentenced to 80 years in prison, with 20 years
suspended. The victim was a pizza
delivery person. The sole issue on
appeal is the trial court’s refusal to receive into evidence (as part of the
sentencing hearing) certain polygraph evidence offered by Defendant. The proffered evidence supported the
Defendant’s version of the facts – that his co-Defendant was the shooter, not
him. The SD Supreme Court affirmed,
stating:
[¶32.] The circuit court, in
refusing to admit Banks’s polygraph evidence because of reliability concerns,
cited extensive research showing that most state and federal appellate courts
considering the admissibility of polygraph evidence at sentencing have upheld
refusals to admit this evidence. See, e.g., Ortega, 270 F.3d at 548
(citing numerous cases from other appellate courts). While Banks attempts to
distinguish a few of the cases the circuit court cited, he has not refuted the
central point that the weight of the authority is contrary to his position.
Moreover, given this Court’s clearly expressed concerns regarding the
reliability of polygraph evidence, Banks has failed to show how the circuit
court’s ruling would be “clearly against reason and evidence,” Reeves,
2021 S.D. 64, ¶ 11, 967 N.W.2d at 147 (quoting Berget, 2014 S.D. 61, ¶
13, 853 N.W.2d at 52), or “outside the range of permissible choices.” Mitchell,
2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 27, 963 N.W.2d at 332 (quoting Rice, 2016 S.D. 18, ¶ 23,
877 N.W.2d at 83). We therefore conclude that the circuit court did not abuse
its discretion in excluding the proffered polygraph evidence.
The
Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney.
These
decisions may be accessed at
