The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Extreme Road Rage incident in Sioux Falls results in
prison sentence;
- Clay County CPU litigation remanded;
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. KWAI, 2023 S.D. 42: As a result of an
original near-accident encounter on a roadway in Sioux Falls and subsequent
interactions between Defendant and Victim (road rage in the extreme), Defendant
was charged with:
[¶9.] … aggravated assault
(extreme indifference); aggravated assault (dangerous weapon; crowbar and/or
metal pipe); aggravated assault (dangerous weapon; vehicle); aggravated assault
(physical menace); hit and run (injury or death); and hit and run (property
damage).
Victim
sustained:
[¶8.] … a head injury requiring
multiple staples to repair, nine broken ribs, a broken hip, and a fractured
femur. [Victim] was in the hospital for approximately one month and underwent
eight surgeries. [Victim] has used a wheelchair since the incident and suffers
from memory and speech issues.
Jury
convicted Defendant on all counts. The
trial court sentenced Defendants to 15 years (with 5 suspended) on aggravated
assault, and a concurrent sentence of 2 years (with two years suspended) on
felony hit and run. Sentences on
remaining counts were not imposed.
Defendant was given credit for 409 days served.
Treating
this appeal as a Korth brief appeal, the SD Supreme Court affirmed,
holding, inter alia, that South Dakota’s “felony
hit and run statute applies regardless of whether the defendant’s acts were
intentional.” Court’s opinion is
unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
HAUCK
v. CLAY COUNTY COMMISSION, 2023 S.D. 43: Petitioner sought a Conditional Use
Permit (CPU) in Clay County for Recreational Campground, originally seeking to
establish 408 camping sites. The Clay
County Planning and Zoning Commission denied the permit. Petitioner appealed to
the “Clay County Commission, which was sitting as the Board of
Adjustment,” which
upheld the denial. Petitioner sought
relief in Circuit Court, requesting a writ of certiorari and writ of
mandamus. The Circuit denied review,
holding that the request for writ of certiorari was untimely. The SD Supreme Court upheld the denial of a writ
of mandamus, but reversed and remanded in regard to the request for writ
of certiorari. The Court stated:
[¶10.] Under SDCL 11-2-61, the thirty-day time to
file an appeal to the circuit court of a decision by the Board of Adjustment
begins to run upon the “filing” of that decision. Because we cannot determine
from the settled record whether or when the Board’s decision was filed, we
cannot determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to act in this
case. We reverse the circuit court’s decision dismissing the petition for writ
of certiorari and remand for further proceedings to determine the
jurisdictional question of whether Hauck’s petition was timely filed.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
These
decisions may be accessed at
