Inmate's misconduct results in 2 more years to term of imprisonment

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Inmate’s misconduct adds 2 years to his term of imprisonment Summary follows: STATE v. WARFIELD, 2026 S.D. 20: Incident occurred at Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield. Inmate was charged with two counts of assault and 1 count of intentional damage to property. Video surveillance was used as part of the State’s evidence, but there was an issue as to its completeness. Jury convicted inmate of 1 count of assault and of intentional damage to property. Inmate was acquitted on other count of assault. The trial court sentenced Inmate to 2 years to run consecutive to his other sentences and ordered restitution and court costs. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Gusinski. This case was submitted on the briefs 5 weeks, 2 days ago. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Four new Decisions by SD Supreme Court today

The SD Supreme Court handed down 4 decisions this morning: 1) hearsay phone call to police permissible as cumulative/corrobative; 2) immunity from civil assault found in self-defense statute; 3) Six appeals (consolidated) from Meade and Lawrence County result in affirmance of prison sentences; 4) convictions for failure to appear and assault affirmed, rejecting jurisdictional challenge related to Indian Country issue. Summaries follow: STATE v. CLIFFORD, 2026 S.D. 16: Following a family dispute April 6, 2023, Defendant took a drive, resulting in his arrest. Thereafter he was convicted by jury of “aggravated eluding, reckless driving, driving under suspension, and failing to stop at a stop sign.” As part of its case, the State introduced evidence of a phone call to the police alerting as to Defendant being on the roadway. Defendant asserts on appeal that this evidence was inadmissible hearsay. The SD Supreme Court rejected this argument and affirmed, holding that the phone call evidence was “merely cumulative or corroborative of other evidence that was independently and properly admitted.” This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern. ANDERSON v. STREETER, 2026 S.D. 17: Defendant shot Plaintiff in the chest. Grand Jury considered the facts, but failed to indict. Plaintiff filed this Civil Suit for Assault. The trial court ruled for Defendant holding that he was immune from civil liability because he acted in self-defense, pursuant to SDCL 22-18-4.8 (which grants immunity from both criminal prosecution and civil liability). Plaintiff appeals. The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myrne. Circuit Judge Klinger on this case, in lieu of Justice Gusinsky who had served as the trial judge. Defendant requested appellate attorney fees, but the Court denied the request, noting that attorney fees were awardable by the trial court under to SDCL 22-18-4.8 and, therefore, also awardable on appeal. But, the Court denied the request because Defendant had “not submitted a motion or a ‘verified, itemized statement of legal services rendered,’ as required by SDCL 15-26A-87.3(1).” STATE v. WARE, 2026 S.D. 18: Defendant, whose “criminal history is extensive,” entered guilty pleas to three felony charges in Lawrence County, as well as to a felony charge in Meade County. He was sentenced to prison, with the Meade County sentence to run consecutive to the Lawrence County sentence. The SD Supreme Court consolidated six (6) differnt appeals by the Defendant, but grants no relief to Defendant, affirming the lower courts. The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Gusinsky. STATE v. WINCKLER, 2026 S.D. 19: Defendant was convicted by Jury of “failing to appear for a pretrial conference at the Charles Mix County courthouse,” and also entered a guilty plea to “a separate, unrelated criminal matter, the crime of simple assault after an altercation with another inmate at the Charles Mix County jail.” Defendant appeals both proceedings. Defendant argues, inter alia, a jurisdictional issue, “alleg[ing] that the Charles Mix County courthouse and jail are situated in Indian country, thus depriving the State of subject matter jurisdiction over [him], an enrolled member of the Yankton Sioux Tribe.” The SD Supreme Court disposes of both appeals with this decision. The Court affirms in both, and rejects the jurisdictional argument. The Court also affirming on other issues raised. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Gusinsky. All five justices agree on the result. Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion, casting doubt on the reliability of existing precedent (Bruguier v. Class, 1999 S.D. 122, 599 N.W.2d 364) in regard to the jurisdictional analysis. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Four New Decisions Today

The SD Supreme Court handed down 4 decisionsthis morning: 1) transgender woman denied amended birthcertificate; 2)  doctrine of judicial estoppel endsone part of family dispute over land; 3) DOT employees shielded from law suit;   4) Rule 11 sanctions availableagainst client.    Summaries follow: AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NIELSEN, 2026 S.D.12: Transgender woman sought to amend official birth certificate, so as “to change the sex designation from male to femaleto reflect her current gender identity.”  The trialcourt denied relief.  The SD Supreme Courtaffirmed the denial of relief.  All fivejustices voted to affirm.  The Court’s opinionis authored by Justice DeVaney.  JusticeSalter filed a concurring opinion in which he specifically endorses a concurringopinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alita in a recent decision, [UnitedStates v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495, 559 (2025)].  Chief Justice Jensen endorsed Justice Salter’sconcurring opinion (endorsing Justice Alito). Newly appointed Justice Gusinsky did not participate in this case.    BRYANT v. BRYANT, 2026 S.D. 13: Two brothers areinvolved in litigation against each other and also their mother. The Father isdeceased and divorced from the Mother prior to his death.  The trial court held that the brothers heldtitle jointly, but that Mother’s claim is barred by judicialestoppel.  Noting that a partitionaction involving the brothers is still pending, Mother appeals under SDCL15-6-54(b).  The SD Supreme Court acceptedthe appeal and affirmed.  This decisionis unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. This casewas submitted to the Court less than a month ago, on January 10, 2026.  ESTATE OF SANBORN v. PETERSON, ET AL, 2026 S.D.14: Two girls died in a motor vehicle accident on SD Highway 218.  Claiming that “that the fatal accident resulted from the DOTemployees’ negligent failure to maintain and repair the adjacent gravelshoulder in compliance with governing standards,” Mother of the girls filed suitagainst six DOT employees.  The trialcourt granted summary judgment for Defendants on the basis of the “public duty doctrine.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed but did so onthe basis of “sovereign immunity,” not “public duty.” The SDSupreme Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Salter, with two Justices infull agreement. Chief Justice Jensen filed a brief  concurring opinion.  Retired Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinionin which she asserts the duty imposed on Defendants is a “ministerial duty,” not a “discretionary duty.” Justice Kern’s dissent containscolor photographs depicting an unacceptable drop-off of up to 7 inches in theshoulder.     DISSOLUTION OF HEALY RANCH, INC., 2026 S.D. 15: This litigation is seeminglynever-ending.  In this chapter, the issueis a $240,000 sanction imposed on a litigant under Rule 11.  The SD Supreme Court reverses and “remand[s]for a hearing and reconsideration of the various types of sanctions, and if amonetary sanction is imposed, a determination that includes Bret’s ability topay the monetary sanction.” This is a 3-2 decision, with the Court’s opinion authoredby Retired Justice Kern.  Justice Salterfiles a concurring opinion expressing the belief that monetary sanctions, whilepermissible against an attorney representing a client, are not permissibleagainst a client/litigant only.  Justice DeVaneyconcurs with Justice Salter.  NOTE: TheLitigant perfected his appeal in this matter pro se.  These decisions may be accessed at   http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .