The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Sculptor’s claims against Kevin Costner survive;
- Failure by State to give notice of expert testimony
found to be non-prejudicial;
Summaries
follows:
DETMERS
v. COSTNER, 2023 S.D. 40: This is a dispute between the Sculptor and Kevin
Costner over several “bronze sculptures of buffalo and Lakota warriors on
horseback.” After the non-completion
of the proposed “The Dunbar Resort,” Kevin Costner was sued but he won round #1 of this
litigation because of his decision utilize the sculptures in connection with “Tatanka,” another project on the
same site. Subsequently, Costner listed
the property for sale. The listing
agreement excluded the sculptures, designating them as items that Costner, as
seller, would be retaining. The Sculptor
filed this 2nd lawsuit. The trial court ruled for Costner, but the
SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
The Court held that the Sculptor’s claims are not barred by res
judicata and also that the trial court, “erred in its conclusion
that Costner had no remaining obligation under the [parties’] Agreement.” This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion
authored by CJ Jensen. Circuit Judge
Douglas Barnett sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.
STATE
v. PRETTY WEASEL, 2023 S.D. 41: Defendant was found guilty, by jury, of 10
counts of sexual contact with a minor under 16 and of 1 count of 1st
degree rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 10 years on the each of
the 10 contact counts (to run concurrently) and 25 years on the rape count (to
run consecutively to the 10 year sentences).
Defendant’s assertions of error on appeal related to the testimony of a
witness who was “a mental health practitioner, who had served as the victim’s
counselor.” Defendant asserted that
this witness’s testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony and that
the testimony was in the nature of expert testimony for which the State had
failed to give proper notice to the Defendant. (NOTE: The State did give proper
notice for a different expert who did, in fact, testify.) The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting both
arguments. As to the State’s failure to give notice, the Court found that such
failure was non-prejudicial, stating:
[¶40.] … even if this expert
testimony had been excluded, it would have had no effect on the verdict because
of the overwhelming nature of the other evidence presented to the jury.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
