The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Administrative Appeal to Circuit Court upheld;
- Other Acts Evidence permitted in Rape Trial.
Summaries
follows:
KOVAC
v. S.D. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE DIVISION, 2023 S.D. 45: Kovac was ordered by an ALJ (affirmed by the
DOL Secretary) to repay “$20,278.00 in federal
pandemic unemployment benefits.” Kovac sought to file an appeal to
Circuit Court by letter. On the final
day permitted for filing, the Hughes County Deputy Clerk rejected the appeal
and mailed the letter back to Kovac advising non-compliance with various
Supreme Court Rules. Kovac secured
counsel and attempted to again file an appeal – to no avail. The trial court upheld the action of the
Deputy Clerk, holding, inter alia, that Kovac’s failure to file a “case
filing statement requirement under SDCL 15-6-5(h)” was jurisdictional and its
omission deprived the court of authority to act. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:
[¶27.] The case filing statement
requirement under SDCL 15-6-5(h) is a Supreme Court Rule. There is nothing in
SDCL 1-26-31 or in SDCL chapter 1-26 that requires the filing of a civil case
statement as a jurisdictional prerequisite to perfecting an administrative
appeal to circuit court.
In
support of its holding, the Court cited and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court
decision, Boechler, P.C. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, __ U.S. __, 142
S. Ct. 1493, 1497 (2022). This decision
is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
STATE
v. ORTIZ-MARTINEZ, 2023 S.D. 46: Defendant was convicted by jury of 2 counts of
rape and sentenced to 25 years on each count, with the sentences to run
consecutively. Defendant asserts on appeal
that the State improperly introduced evidence of other uncharged acts of rape,
and also error in instructing the jury appropriately in regard to “other
acts” evidence. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, holding that
Defense Counsel had “opened the door” in cross examination, stating:
[¶34.] [O]ther acts evidence
could be admitted by acquiescence, or where both parties elicit it, or when one
party opens the door to the admission of other acts evidence. See State v.
Taylor, 2020 S.D. 48, ¶ 34 n.4, 948 N.W.2d 342, 352 n.4 (quoting State
v. Letcher, 1996 S.D. 88, ¶ 25, 552 N.W.2d 402, 406) (holding that a
circuit court may permit the State to “introduce otherwise inadmissible
evidence when a criminal defendant’s trial strategy has ‘opened the door’ to
the evidence”). In fact, that happened here when defense counsel asked the
forensic examiner, “She didn’t disclose multiple rapes though; did she? I
watched that video. She didn’t disclose multiple rapes?” In a direct response
to the question, the forensic interviewer confirmed that L.V. had disclosed
multiple instances in which her stepfather had penetrated her digitally and
with his penis “at the old house, the new house, as well as the camper.”
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
