Four Decisions by SD Supreme Court today

The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning: 1) Sexual Contact Offenses affirmed; 2) Ex-Wife prevails in claim of lack of jurisdiction; 3) UIM claim, with significant awards of additional damages upheld; 4) Hyde County Criminal Proceeding upheld. Summaries follow: STATE v. RICHTER, 2025 S.D. 58: Defendant was convicted, by jury, of “three counts of sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting, a developmentally disabled adult.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren. ESTATE OF CUNNINGHAM, 2025 S.D. 59: This is a dispute over H’s IRA account. Ex-W had been named as beneficiary, but Ex-W relinquished claim to it in settlement in Tennessee Divorce proceeding. H moved to South Dakota and died without changing the beneficiary designation. At the request of H’s Personal Representative (H’s daughter), trial court asserted jurisdiction and ruled against Ex-W. Recognizing that Ex-W had properly preserved the issue (failure of personal jurisdiction), the SD Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling, with instructions that Ex-W’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction should be granted. The Court stated, “exercising jurisdiction over [Ex-W] —whether viewed as in rem or personal jurisdiction—would not comport with the ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. FIECHTNER v. AMERICAN WEST INS., 2025 S.D. 60: This is a suit for UIM benefits, bad faith and related damages. The jury and trial court awarded Plaintiff damages as follows: [¶26.] The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Fiechtner on all counts. The jury found that American West breached its insurance contract and awarded $400,000 in damages for that count, representing the value of [Plaintiff’s] UIM claim. The jury determined the date the UIM claim should have been paid was October 23, 2019. The circuit court later included $189,369.86 in prejudgment interest relating to breach of contract damages. The jury found that American West breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and awarded $250,000 in damages for that count. Finally, the jury found that punitive damages were appropriate and awarded $890,000 in such damages. Additionally, attorney fees were awarded to the Plaintiff, pursuant to SDCL 58-12-3 as follows: [¶28.] The circuit court awarded $96,045 in statutory attorney fees and sales tax of $5,954.79 on the fees. The SD Supreme Court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s rulings, with all five justices agreeing to affirm. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren. Chief Justice Jensen and Justice Salter filed separate concurring opinions. Of particular interest is the following paragraph of the Court’s opinion which discusses evidence presented by Plaintiff regarding the “insurance premium”: [¶18.] [Plaintiff’s] counsel published a document that the parties have denominated the “claims dollar exhibit.” As depicted below, this document consists of a picture of a dollar bill with writing over the top that generally describes how insurance companies process premium payments. STATE v. LONGCHASE, 2025 S.D. 61: Criminal Defendant, following guilty plea, presents this appeal asserting a violation of his right to a speedy trial and inappropriate requirement that he reimburse Hyde County for his court-appointed attorney fees. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating: [¶43.] Longchase waived his right to a speedy trial by entering an unconditional guilty plea. Because Longchase received the assistance of appointed counsel at every critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him, the circuit court’s order requiring him to reimburse his court-appointed attorney fees did not deprive him of his constitutional right to counsel. Nor did the court’s recoupment order deprive Longchase of due process; the order was not imposed until after a hearing at which Longchase had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Finally, the circuit court’s findings regarding Longchase’s future ability to pay were sufficiently particular and adequately supported by the record. We therefore affirm the court’s order denying Longchase’s motion to dismiss and its order requiring Longchase to reimburse his court-appointed attorney fees. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. These opinions may be accessed by clicking on this link: http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .