25 year sentence upheld

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 decision this morning:

 

1)   25 year sentence for inmate’s possession of altered razor blade upheld;

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. HILLYER, 2025 S.D. 30: Pennington County jail inmate “was convicted of possession of a weapon - an altered razor blade,” and sentenced to 25 years as “a habitual offender.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s arguments that, “that the circuit court erred by rejecting his lesser-included offense jury instruction, [by] denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence, [by] refusing to give an instruction telling the jury not to consider hypothetical uses of the razor blade, [and] that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial.”  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

Trial Court erred in applying Evidentiary Principle of Res Gestae

 

1) Trial court erred in relying on evidentiary principle of res gestae;

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. ROUSE, 2025 S.D. 29: Based upon an incident which occurred during inmate’s incarceration “in the maximum security cellblock of the Hughes County Jail,” he was charged and convicted of “three counts of aggravated assault (physical menace) against a law enforcement officer and one count of threatening a law enforcement officer.” At trial, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce evidence of the underlying reason why Defendant was incarcerated – because he was “awaiting trial on an aggravated assault charge.”  The trial court ruled that such evidence was “admissible as res gestae evidence.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the three felony counts, but not on the misdemeanor conviction, stating:

 

From our review of the record, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different outcome if the testimony about [Defendant] being in jail for an aggravated assault involving an alleged stabbing had not been admitted. See Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26, 1 N.W.3d at 686. We therefore conclude [Defendant] was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of this testimony such that a reversal and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault counts is warranted.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. ROUSE, 2025 S.D. 29: Based upon an incident which occurred during inmate’s incarceration “in the maximum security cellblock of the Hughes County Jail,” he was charged and convicted of “three counts of aggravated assault (physical menace) against a law enforcement officer and one count of threatening a law enforcement officer.” At trial, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce evidence of the underlying reason why Defendant was incarcerated – because he was “awaiting trial on an aggravated assault charge.”  The trial court ruled that such evidence was “admissible as res gestae evidence.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the three felony counts, but not on the misdemeanor conviction, stating:

 

From our review of the record, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different outcome if the testimony about [Defendant] being in jail for an aggravated assault involving an alleged stabbing had not been admitted. See Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26, 1 N.W.3d at 686. We therefore conclude [Defendant] was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of this testimony such that a reversal and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault counts is warranted.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

Three New Decisions by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1) Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees (times 2) in Mechanic’s Lien foreclosure;

2)   Search incident to Mental Health hold upheld; 

3) Pro Se Defendant suffers adverse result in lower court and on appeal.

  

Summaries follows:

 

SMITH MASONRY v. WIPI GROUP INC., 2025 S.D. 26: In this action, Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on a Mechanic’s Lien.  The trial court denied relief initially but was reversed on appeal in WIPI I, 2023 S.D. 48, 996 N.W.2d 368.  On remand, the trial court awarded the full amount of the lien as ordered by the SD Supreme Court.  But, the trial court also denied attorney fees to Plaintiff.  This appeal looks at whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees.  The SD Supreme Court again reverses the trial court and orders a remand for an award of Attorney Fees.  The Court also awards Plaintiff appellate attorney fees of $30,000.  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justice Kern filed a concurring opinion expressing her belief that the trial court should award no less than $150,000 in attorney fees on remand (in addition to the appellate award of $30,000).

STATE v. PARRIS, 2025 S.D. 27: Police found Meth in a small container in Defendant’s pocket when Defendant was taken “into protective custody on a mental health hold after determining, based on his suicidal statements  and other actions, that emergency intervention was necessary.” After being convicted of possession of a controlled substance, Defendant appeals asserting that his Motion to Suppress Evidence should have been granted.  The SD Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the conviction.  The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

STATE v. SHEPLEY, 2025 S.D. 28: After receiving an undesired result in proceeding pro se in this criminal proceeding, Defendant appeals asserting that the “circuit court failed to adequately advise him of the risks of self-representation.”  The SD Supreme Court rejects the appeal and affirms.  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .