"Show-up identification" by eye-witnesses tolerated

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia:

 

1. “Show-up identification” by eye-witnesses tolerated;

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. OSMAN, 2024 S.D. 15: Defendant was convicted of offenses related to a vehicle collision with a parked vehicle where the driver fled the scene on foot. Eye witnesses identified Defendant in a “show-up identification” procedure, 20 minutes after the incident, with respect to a suspect the police had apprehended nearby.  The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 5 years in prison.  This appeal is primarily focused on the the trial court’s refusal to suppress the “show-up identification” made by the eyewitnesses to the incident.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, while recognizing that, “ ‘[s]how-up identifications are inherently suspect.’” This ruling is a 4-1 decision, with the Court’s opinion authored by Justice Kern.  Justice Myren dissented, stating that, “There [had been] a substantial likelihood of misidentification because of an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure.” 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

Denial of Counsel's Request to Withdraw Warrants Reversal

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia:

 

1. Denial of Counsel’s Request to Withdraw warrants reversal;

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. ABRAHAM-MEDVED, 2024 S.D. 14: Following a guilty plea, defendant and her court-appointed counsel appeared for a sentencing hearing.  At the hearing, court-appointed counsel requested permission to be removed from the case

 

because of “a serious breakdown of communication between” him and [the client.]

 

Thereafter,

 

The circuit court did not inquire of either [client] or [counsel] as to the nature of the breakdown in communication. Rather, the court denied [counsel’s] request to withdraw, explaining, “I think that since the matter is set for sentencing I’m not sure what communication there is left to do.”

 

Defendant was sentenced to 5 years in prison, with 2 years suspended.

 

The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Defendant had been prejudiced by the breakdown in communications and the trial court’s refusal to allow withdrawal of counsel.  This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .