The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Divorce decree affirmed, wife awarded appellate
attorney fees
- Trial Court’s ruling for inmate on habeas corpus action
reversed;
Summaries
follows:
WEBER
v. WEBER, 2023 S.D. 64: H and W were older when married (ages 51 & 53) and
divorced less than four years later. W
owned substantial assets prior to the marriage.
The trial court treated most of the assets as “marital property,” but
nonetheless awarded W a substantially larger share of the assets. H appeals the division of property and also
appeals the trial court’s failure to award him alimony/maintenance. The SD Supreme Court Affirmed. This ruling is
unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. The Court also awarded Wife appellate
attorney fees of $5,000.
ALLY
v. YOUNG, 2023 S.D. 65: Inmate was found
guilty by jury of 1st degree manslaughter and sentenced to 45 years,
with 20 suspended. After his sentence
was affirmed, Inmate brought this habeas corpus action, asserting ineffective
assistance of counsel. The trial
court agreed with Inmate’s assertions, finding that he was “depriv[ed]
of a fair trial.” The SD Supreme Court
reversed. This decision is 70 paragraphs
long. The concluding paragraph states as
follows:
[¶70.] Ally was not deprived
of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. While defense counsel’s opening
statement included an imprecise remark, not attributable to trial strategy, the
mistake did not undermine the adversarial process or deprive Ally of a fair
trial. Further, Ally’s defense counsel made a reasonably strategic decision to
exclude parts of Ally’s three interviews with Detective Carda. Counsel
effectively elicited the same exculpatory evidence, and inferences contained
therein, from the hour-long segment of interview footage played for the jury
and from Detective Carda’s and Ally’s testimony at trial. In addition,
counsel’s decision not to elicit additional testimony from Dr. Ophoven was a
strategically reasonable decision. Further, Ally has not shown how failing to
ask certain questions that were developed with the benefit of hindsight
overcomes the presumption that counsel exercised reasonably professional
judgment during trial. Lastly, counsel’s failure to disclose the video shared
with Dr. Van Ee prior to cross-examination was a deviation from prevailing
professional norms, but it did not result in significant prejudice to Ally. The
court did not exclude any favorable evidence as a consequence, the matter was
handled outside the presence of the jury, and defense counsel was able to
address the State’s limited reference to the matter during Ally’s closing
argument. Accordingly, we conclude that Ally did not receive ineffective
assistance of counsel at his 2012 trial, and the habeas court’s decision is
hereby reversed.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern. Circuit Judge
Smith sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
