The
SD Supreme Court handed down five decisions this morning:
- 1st degree rape conviction
affirmed;
- City of Wall exonerated:
- Defense of lack of personal jurisdiction preserved
adequately;
- Child dependency exemption clarified; and
- LWOP sentence for 2nd Degree Murder
affirmed.
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. CARTER, 2023 S.D. 67: Defendant was convicted by jury of 1st
degree rape and sentenced to 45 years in prison, with 25 years suspended. The SD Supreme Court Affirmed, rejecting the
following assertions of error made on appeal:
1. Whether the circuit court
abused its discretion when it allowed the State to publish to the jury three
short videos of child pornography.
2. Whether the circuit court
abused its discretion when it refused to allow Carter’s expert the opportunity
to testify as to the reliability of the NAAT testing.
3. Whether the circuit court’s
decision to admit E.W.’s unsworn statements into evidence was an abuse of
discretion and violated Carter’s right of confrontation.
4. Whether the circuit court
erred by denying Carter’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds of
insufficient evidence.
5. Whether Carter’s trial
counsel was so ineffective that Carter was denied his due process right to
counsel.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
LOVE’S
TRAVEL STOPS v. CITY OF WALL, 2023 S.D. 68: The City of Wall secures relief
from the trial court’s orders of mandamus and contempt in connection with an
effort by Love’s Travel Stops to build a facility in Wall. The dispute and its history are described in
the first 2 paragraphs of the Court’s Opinion, as follows:
[¶1.] Love’s Travel Stops &
Country Stores, Inc. (Loves) entered into a conditional agreement to purchase
property in Wall, South Dakota (City). Loves applied to rezone the property and
sought a building permit to develop a new travel stop on the property. After
the City Council denied these requests, Loves filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
writ of certiorari, and request for declaratory relief with the circuit court.
The circuit court granted Loves’ petition in part (Mandamus Order) declaring
that the City’s Zoning Ordinance did not apply to the subject property and
granted mandamus relief requiring the City to reconsider Loves’ application for
a building permit after it “review[ed] and determine[d] whether any member of
the City Council is disqualified” from considering Loves’ application under
SDCL 6-1-17. Neither party appealed the circuit court’s ruling.
[¶2.] The City Council
subsequently conducted a conflict-of-interest analysis and determined that no
member was disqualified from considering Loves’ application under SDCL 6-1-17.
Thereafter, the City Council reconsidered and again denied Loves’ building
permit application. Following the denial, Loves filed a motion for order to
show cause requesting the circuit court to find the City in contempt of the
court’s order and sought issuance of a building permit. The circuit court found
the City to be in contempt for willfully and contumaciously disobeying its
Mandamus Order and ordered the City to issue Loves a building permit. The City
appeals the circuit court’s contempt order. We reverse.
The
Court’s holding is unanimous (5-0) with opinion by Chief Justice Jensen and is
explained in the concluding paragraph, set forth here:
[¶35.] While the circuit court
erred in the first instance in finding the City in contempt of its mandamus
order, the circuit court’s remedy also exceeded its authority by imposing a
punitive, rather than coercive civil contempt remedy. Therefore, for the
reasons stated above, we reverse the circuit court’s finding of contempt and
the order issuing a building permit to Loves.
ENGEL
v. GEARY, 2023 S.D. 69: Defendant Husband (in California) was sued for divorce
in South Dakota. Through a pro se’ affidavit, Defendant Husband
asserted, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court conducted hearings and
rendered a divorce decree and orders relating to division of property,
including “specific directives as it relates to the parties’ property,
including bank accounts and debts.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded,
holding as follows:
[¶32.] We therefore conclude
that the circuit court erred when it entered orders relating to the division of
property and when it imposed obligations on Geary personally. On remand, the
circuit court is directed to vacate these directives from the judgment and
decree of divorce.
The
SD Supreme Court held that while the defense of personal jurisdiction is easily
waived, the Defendant’s pro se’ affidavit was adequate to preserve it,
notwithstanding the fact the words “personal jurisdiction” were not specifically
set forth in it. The decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion
authored by Justice DeVaney.
ERICKSON
v. ERICKSON, 2023 S.D. 70: This is post-divorce dispute involving the Mother’s
entitlement to declare the parties’ children as “depcndents” on her income tax
filings. The underlying stipulation,
upon which the divorce decree was granted, is ambiguous. The trial court modified the divorce decree
to as to clearly favor Mother. The trial
court additionally awarded Mother attorney fees stating, “[w]e
shouldn’t be here, and [Mother] shouldn’t have to pay for it. [Father] tried to
take advantage of the situation, and he should have to pay for it.”
The
SD Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s modification of the divorce decree,
but reversed and remanded on the issue of attorney fees. The closing paragraph of the opinion, which
explains the ruling, is set forth below:
[¶44.] Though the case did not
implicate Rule 60(b), the circuit court, nevertheless, possessed authority to
clarify its own judgment. Because the Agreement was ambiguous, the court could
properly consider parol evidence, and its factual determination that the
parties intended to allow Tara to claim the children as dependents was not
clearly erroneous; nor was its related conclusion that the Agreement should have
been written to allow Tara to claim the children as dependents. As a result,
the court’s determination that Tara did not deliberately violate the court’s
order was equally supportable. However, the court did not make the required
findings of fact to support its award of attorney fees. Therefore, we affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter. It should also be noted that the SD Supreme Court
declined the opportunity to award Mother appellate attorney fees.
STATE
v. RICHARD, 2023 S.D. 71: Defendant was found guilty by jury of 2nd
Degree Murder and sentenced to Life without Parole. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion
authored by Justice Salter.
This decision addresses two issues urged on
appeal: 1) the trial court’s refusal to
grant Defendant’s Motion In Limine seeking to prohibit the state from
introducing evidence of his gang affiliation; and 2) the trial court’s refusal
to grant a mistrial when it because apparent that the State had not complied
with a specific order of the trial court to provide Defendant with all expert
reports.
As to issue # 1, the Court held that the trial
court’s ruling was within its discretion.
As to issue # 2, the Court stated, “Here,
the State complied with its statutory obligations, but it does not appear it
complied with the circuit court’s specific discovery order which required it to
produce copies of all expert reports.” The Court
next proceeded to hold that the Defendant had failed to establish prejudice as
a result of the non-disclosure.
These
decisions may be accessed at
