The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions
this morning:
1)
Criminal Sentences Affirmed;
2) LWOP sentence, on 2nd Degree Murder
verdict, upheld;
3) Economic Loss
doctrine under UCC does not foreclose tort claim against subcontractor;
4) LWOP sentence on 2nd
Degree Murder verdict upheld, rejection of spoliation of evidence argument
relating to cell phone.
Summaries follows:
STATE v. MARTIN, 2025 S.D. 15: After
pleading guilty to two felony charges and conceding habitual offender status,
Defendant appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court. The SD
Supreme Court affirmed, in a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by
Chief Justice Jensen. The circumstances of the offenses, the action by the
trial court, and the argument on appeal are set forth in the opening paragraph
of the opinion, as follows:
[¶1.] Chad Martin was indicted on multiple felony
and misdemeanor charges following a high-speed chase during which he struck
another vehicle, injuring one of its occupants. Martin pleaded guilty to one
count of vehicular battery and one count of aggravated eluding. He also
admitted to a part II habitual offender information. The circuit court
sentenced Martin to twenty years in the state penitentiary with eight years
suspended on the vehicular battery conviction and imposed a suspended two-year
sentence on the aggravated eluding conviction. Martin appeals, claiming the
circuit court abused its discretion by considering uncharged conduct at
sentencing. We affirm.
STATE v. TUOPEH, 2025 S.D. 16: Following jury
verdict of guilty on 2nd Degree murder, Defendant was sentenced to
Life Without Parole. This appeal raises a number of issues, each of which
is resolved adversely to Defendant. The Court’s decision is unanimous
(5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern. The issues considered, and
rejected on appeal, are set forth in [¶13.], as follows:
1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion
when it denied Tuopeh’s proposed alternative counts instruction.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by failing to
procure Robinson’s attendance or admit evidence of his statements concerning
Pour’s alleged admission.
3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion
by overruling a vouching objection regarding the prosecutor’s declaration that
“my job is justice.”
4. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion
by overruling objections to Dr. Snell’s testimony regarding certain cause of
death opinions.
5. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion
when it denied Tuopeh’s proposed jury instructions on speculation and
conjecture.
6. Whether the circuit court erred by denying
Tuopeh’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
7. Whether the circuit court erred by denying
Tuopeh’s request for statutory immunity under SDCL 22-18-4.8.
8. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion
by admitting a photograph of a page from Tuopeh’s notebook.
MAY v. FIRST RATE EXCAVATE, INC., 2025 S.D. 17:
After settling claim against Contractor under a Pierringer release. [See
Pierringer v. Hoger, 124 N.W.2d 106 (Wis. 1963); Schick v. Rodenburg, 397
N.W.2d 464, 467 (S.D. 1986)], Home Owner sued sub-contractor for alleged negligence
in work done in construction of foundation and septic system for their
home. The trial court dismissed the claim, applying an analysis of the economic
loss doctrine under the UCC and held that, as such, a tort action in
negligence was foreclosed. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded,
providing a review and discussion of the economic loss doctrine. The
Court’s opinion is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern. The
opening and closing paragraphs of the opinion present a description of the
facts and issues as resolved by the trial court and the Supreme Court, as
follows:
[¶1.] James and Amber May retained RES
Construction (RES) to construct their home in Sioux Falls. RES hired First Rate
Excavate, Inc. (First Rate), a subcontractor, to install the septic system for
the home and construct the home’s foundation, which the Mays allege was
installed several feet below grade level. The Mays claim this resulted in
significant drainage and septic issues that caused damage to the Mays’ new
house and yard and neighboring yards. The Mays sued First Rate for negligence
sounding in tort. The circuit court dismissed the Mays’ claim based on the
economic loss doctrine and the Mays appeal. We reverse.
[¶22.] In light of our conclusion that the
economic loss doctrine does not apply to this case, as the claim raised is
outside the context of the UCC, we need not consider the Mays’ alternative
argument that the “other property” exception to the economic loss doctrine
applies. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
STATE v. ROGERS, 2025 S.D. 18: Following a
jury verdict of guilty on 2nd Degree Murder charge and related
offenses, Defendant was sentenced to Life Without Parole (LWOP). The SD
Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by
Justice Kern. A discussion of the facts and issues resolved by the trial
court consumes the first 46 paragraphs of this opinion. The Supreme Court
rejected Defendant’s argument that he was entitled to judgment of acquittal. The Court also rejected
Defendants “spoliation of evidence” argument, holding that the fact
the police “fail[ed] to properly
analyze data” and
then returned a cell phone to “an alleged third-party perpetrator without notice to the defense,
and [the] subsequent destruction [of the phone did not] constitute a due
process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution because he was [allegedly] denied material and potentially
exculpatory evidence—namely the location data from [alleged third-party
perpetrator’s] phone at the time of the murder.”
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
