The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- 1st degree murder conviction affirmed;
- Res judicata bars spouse’s new claim.
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. BOLDEN, 2024 S.D. 22: Defendant, after having been convicted by jury of 1st
degree Murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, was sentenced to life in
prison and 35 years on the firearm conviction.
The facts of this offense took place outside of a nightclub in Sioux
Falls. Defendant claimed self-defense
and testified at trial, along with several other witnesses called on his
behalf. Defendant’s appeal, asserted in regard
to the 1st degree murder conviction on the ground of insufficient
evidence, is rejected by the SD Supreme Court which affirms the lower
court. This decision is unanimous (5-0),
with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
ESTATE
OF SMEENK, 2024 S.D. 23: This dispute was previously addressed in Estate of
Smeenk (Smeenk I), 2022 S.D. 41, 978 N.W.2d 383, which resulted in a
partial affirmance and a partial reversal.
Subsequent litigation in the trial court resulted in an adverse judgment
to the Appellant (spouse of the deceased) in both appeals. The opening paragraph of this opinion
describes the dispute, its result on the 1st appeal, the lower
court’s more recent action, and the result on this appeal which is also adverse
to Appellant, on the basis of res judicata. Here is ¶1:
[¶1.] Following our decision
in In re Estate of Smeenk (Smeenk I), 2022 S.D. 41, 978 N.W.2d 383,
Denise Schipke-Smeenk filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to
her breach of contract claim against the estate of her deceased husband, Neil
Smeenk. We considered the same breach of contract claim in Smeenk I and
affirmed the circuit court’s decision to deny the claim after a court trial. In
its current iteration, Denise has changed the type of relief she is requesting;
she is now seeking money damages for the breach instead of the specific performance
remedy she had pursued unsuccessfully in Smeenk I. Neil’s son opposed
Denise’s partial summary judgment motion, arguing that our decision in Smeenk
I resolved Denise’s claim against the estate and precluded any further
effort to change or refine the claim under principles of res judicata. The
circuit court agreed and concluded that Denise was barred from litigating her
breach of contract claim against Neil’s estate. Denise appeals, and we affirm.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. (NOTE: The Court’s previous opinion in Smeenk
I had been authored by Chief Justice
Jensen.)
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
