The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Restrictive Covenant held null and void, on equitable principle of non-enforcement;
2) Drive-by shooting convictions upheld;
3) Trial Court’s grant of Habeas Relief Reversed.
Summaries follows:
HOOD v. STRAATMEYER, 2025 S.D. 12: Plaintiffs are “neighbors [who] sued [Defendants] to enjoin them from constructing a house and a large three-car garage” in a subdivision on the basis that such construction violated a 1976 restrictive covenant. “After a bench trial, the circuit court declared the covenant null and void … conclud[ing] it would be inequitable to enforce the covenant because it had never been previously enforced despite numerous violations.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myren. Circuit Judge Rank participated in this decision, in lieu of Justice Kern. NOTE: this case was orally argued some 16 months ago, on March 8, 2023.
STATE v. TURNER, 2025 S.D. 13: Arising from facts involving a drive-by shooting in Sioux Falls, Defendant was convicted by jury “on two counts of aggravated assault and four counts of discharge of a firearm in violation of SDCL 22-14-20.” Defendant’s appeal is predicated upon numerous assertions, as summarized in the opening paragraph of the opinion:
[¶1.] Throughout the proceedings, [Defendant] filed several motions, including a motion to suppress, a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment of acquittal, and a motion for a new trial. The circuit court denied each of these requests. [Defendant] objected to the introduction of a screenshot photograph of a traffic camera video; the circuit court overruled this objection. At the end of the trial, the circuit court rejected three jury instructions proposed by [Defendant]. [Defendant] now appeals the circuit court’s denial of each of those motions, the admission of the photograph, and the denial of his proposed jury instructions.
The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s assertions and affirmed the lower court in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
GONZALES v. MARKLAND, 2025 S.D. 14: Female Defendant “was convicted in 2014 by a jury, comprised of Brule and Buffalo County residents, of beating her boyfriend’s son to death.” This conviction was summarily affirmed on appeal in State v. Gonzales, 877 N.W.2d 106 (S.D. 2016). Defendant was originally “sentenced to 130 years in prison for the manslaughter conviction and a concurrent 15 years for the assault.” The original sentence “was later reduced to 90 years with 50 suspended.” Subsequently, Defendant brought this habeas corpus action asserting an improper cross section of the community for jurors through a dilution of Native American participants and also ineffective assistance of counsel. The proceedings occurred in the 1st Judicial Circuit but all of the Judges in the 1st Circuit recused themselves. A judge from another Circuit was assigned to the Habeas Corpus proceeding. The Habeas trial last three days with testimony from several witnesses, including “the tribal treasurer of the Crow Creek Tribe, the Court Administrator for the First Judicial Circuit,” and at least 4 notable attorneys. The trial court did not rule on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but did find for Defendant on the “cross section” issue, stating:
“[a]pplication of the blended jury pool district concept in this case had the pernicious effect of excluding members of [Defendant’s] community and race from the process that determined her liberty.”
The SD Supreme Court disagreed with the Habeas trial court, reversed and remanded for a final adjudication, denying relief to Defendant on all bases. The Court’s ruling is unanimous (4-1), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
Circuit Judge Hendrickson sat on this case, in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen. Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion.
NOTE: Of primary interest in the reasoning of the trial court (and subsequent analysis by the Supreme Court) is the historical “concept of the vicinage.”
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
