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 .