The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning,
holding, inter alia:
1)
Rape
convictions affirmed;
2)
insurance
coverage for fire loss excluded;
3)
“standby
counsel” did not violate Defendant’s right to proceed pro se;
4)
order denying
confirmation of specific devise not appealable;
Summaries follows:
STATE v. O’BRIEN, 2024 S.D. 52: Defendant was convicted, by jury, of multiple
charges of “rape, sexual contact with a child under the
age of sixteen, and sexual exploitation of a minor.” The trial court imposed multiple prison
sentences. The SD Supreme Court
affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s allegations of: a) insufficiency of evidence;
b)duplicity of charges: and (c) "plain error" in regard to the jury
instructions. This decision is unanimous
(5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. (NOTE:
This case was orally argued less than 3 months ago.)
ACUITY INSURANCE v. A MAXON and WEATHERSPOON, 2024 S.D. 53: Buyers
and Sellers of business sought coverage under fire insurance policy, following
fire to premises. The transaction was
arranged as a “contract for deed,” buyers to receive title through their LLC. Jury found that one of the Buyers, a “principal” of the LLC had “had intentionally started the fire.” As a result the trial court entered “judgment as a matter of law” in favor of insurer (and against
both Buyers and Sellers), holding that Buyer’s conduct also excluded coverage
for Sellers. The SD Supreme Court affirmed.
The decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice
Salter.
STATE v. HEER, 2024 S.D. 54: Facing multiple drug charges,
Defendant filed a “motion to represent himself.” The Trial Court responded by granting the motion, “but [also ] ordering his former court-appointed attorney to serve
as standby counsel.” Jury
found Defendant guilty on all counts. Defendant
presents this appeal, "[w]ith the assistance of
different appointed counsel," Defendant
asserts “improper vouching” by the Prosecutor in closing argument and also that his “Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated by the
appointment of standby counsel and by standby counsel’s presence at trial.” The SD
Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s arguments and affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion
authored by Justice Salter.
ESTATE OF AGER, 2024 S.D. 55: Personal Representative (PR),
daughter of deceased from earlier marriage, began unsupervised administration
of Decedent’s estate. Decedent’s Widow filed
petition for supervised administration.
PR then filed “motion for confirmation of a specific devise.” The Trial
Court granted Widow’s petition for supervised administration and thereafter denied
PR’s “motion for confirmation of a specific devise.” Trial Court also denied Widow’s motion to
have PR removed as PR. PR filed Notice
of Appeal. Widow filed Notice of
Appeal. Both Notices of Appeal are
dismissed. With respect to PR’s effort
to appeal, the last paragraph of the Court’s opinion is instructive:
[¶15.] Here,
the undisputed procedural sequence of events demonstrates that the order for
supervised administration was signed before the circuit court’s order denying [PR’s]
motion for confirmation of a specific devise. See SDCL 15-6-58 (“A
judgment or order becomes complete and effective when reduced to writing,
signed by the court or judge, attested by the clerk and filed in the clerk’s
office.”). Under the circumstances, the action had become a supervised
administration and a single in rem proceeding not subject to Geier’s [In
re Estate of Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, ¶ 15, 809 N.W.2d 355, 359] individual-proceeding rule of finality. We therefore dismiss [PR’s]
appeal and, likewise, [Widow’s] notice of review.
Further explanation for the dismissal for the Widow’s
attempted appeal is set forth in note 2, at the end of the Opinion. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion
authored by Justice Salter.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
