The
SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:
- Prison Sentence for Drug Possession Reversed
- Defendant denied opportunity to withdraw guilty plea to
2nd Degree Rape
- Jury Conviction for 2nd Degree Rape Reversed
Summaries
follows:
STATE
v. FEUCHT, 2024 S.D. 16: Defendant’s
prison sentence (possession of controlled substance) is vacated and remanded
for failure of the trial court to comply with the presumptive probation
statute, SDCL 22-6-11, by not finding and listing aggravating circumstances in
the judgment of conviction. Defendant’s failure to preserve error by
non-compliance with the statute did not bar relief in this appeal, but the
Court makes clear that,
[¶25.] [G]oing forward,
alleged procedural errors regarding the application of SDCL 22-6-11 that were
not first brought to the attention of the sentencing court will be reviewed
only for plain error.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern, on
re-assignment.
STATE
v. TRUEBLOOD, 2024 S.D. 17: After Defendant pled guilty to 2nd
Degree Rape, he sought a change of counsel and also to withdraw his guilty
plea.
[¶8.] In his motion to
withdraw his plea, Trueblood asserted his innocence.
The
trial court denied both the request to change counsel and the motion to
withdraw the guilty plea. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice
Myren.
STATE
v. VAN DER WEIDE, 2024 S.D. 18: Defendant was found guilty by jury of 2nd
Degree Rape and sentenced to prison for 20 years, with 10 suspended. The Victim and Defendant had a prior
relationship, described as follows:
[¶1.] Despite having a daughter together, their
relationship had been sporadic, with
multiple engagements and breakups.
The
SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:
[¶2.] [Defendant]
was found guilty and appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion
in excluding evidence of the sex toys and allowing the State to cross examine
based on unadmitted text messages. We reverse.
* * *
[¶55.] The circuit court
erred in excluding [Defendant’s] testimony regarding the sex toys, violating
his constitutional right to testify in his defense. Because the error is not
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, [Defendant] is entitled to a new trial.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
These
decisions may be accessed at
