The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding inter alia:
1) Amendment A invalid
Summary follows:
THOM & MILLER v. BARNETT et al./ELECTION CONTEST AS TO
AMENDMENT A, 2021 S.D. 65: Today the SD
Supreme Court announced its ruling on Amendment A. The Court holds, by a vote of 4-1, that
Amendment is invalid because it violated the single subject requirement in the
South Dakota Constitution.
This decision may be accessed at
The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding inter alia:
1) Assault conviction
affirmed, with Court establishing foundational evidentiary requirements for
video from automatic surveillance system
Summary follows:
STATE v. REEVES, 2021 S.D. 64:
Defendant “was convicted and sentenced
for assault by a jail inmate – contact with bodily fluids, simple assault
against an inmate, and threatening a law enforcement officer,” for behavior exhibited at the Minnehaha County
Jail. Over Defendant’s objection as to a
lack of proper evidentiary foundation, the trial court admitted into evidence
video collected from video surveillance system utilized in the jail, a system
which runs continuously. The SD Supreme
Court affirmed and, in so doing, addressed an issue not previously decided by
the Court, to wit:
… the
foundational requirements for admitting video footage under SDCL 19-19-901(a)
when a human operator is not available to testify to the accuracy of the scene
depicted in the video.
This decision reviews approaches utilized by other
jurisdictions and ultimately adopts a “flexible
fact-based rule” described as follows:
[¶19.] The
flexible, fact-based rule we adopt today permits the party offering the
evidence, and the party against whom it is offered, a fair opportunity to
address with the circuit court whether sufficient foundational evidence has
been presented to authenticate a particular photograph or video. If a circuit
court determines that there is adequate foundation for the admissibility of the
video, any further “concerns that the defendant ha[s] regarding the
surveillance procedures, and the method of storing and reproducing the video
material, [are] properly the subject of cross-examination and affect[ ] the
weight, not the admissibility, of the video.” Stangle, 97 A.3d at 639
(quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice Kern.
This decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding inter alia:
1) Reversal of division of
property issues
2) Reversal of juvenile
placement with DOC
Summaries follows:
CONTI v. CONTI, 2021 S.D. 62: In this divorce proceeding Wife
appeals, asserting error relating to the valuation of and division of property,
as well as the determination of an equalizing payment. The SD Supreme Court reversed and
remanded. The Court found that the
valuation of the marital home was clearly erroneous and that there was a lack
of specific findings in regard to the inclusion of alleged non-marital property
as marital. This decision is unanimous
(5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
INTEREST OF D.S., 2021 S.D. 63: This is an appeal from the
trial court’s adjudication of a 17 year old of 1st degree rape and
subsequent custodial order of commitment with the Department of
Corrections. The SD Supreme Court
reversed and remanded. The situation is
summarized in the initial paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.]
Seventeen-year-old D.S. was adjudicated of first-degree rape. Prior to the
dispositional hearing, a psychologist conducted a psychosexual evaluation of
D.S., after which he concluded D.S. had a low risk of recidivism and
recommended community-based outpatient treatment. The circuit court committed
D.S. to the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) pursuant to SDCL
26-8C-7. D.S. appeals, arguing the circuit court erred by failing to apply the
statutory requirements for DOC placement under SDCL 26-8C-7(10).
The reversal and remand is described in the final paragraph of
the opinion:
[¶35.] We
reverse and remand for the circuit court to make findings on the viability of a
community-based supervision and treatment alternative and to reimpose a
disposition consistent with the requirements of SDCL 26-8C-7.
This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief
Justice Jensen.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
Summary
follows:
MATTER
OF IMPLICATED INDIVIDUAL, 2021 S.D. 61:
This appeal concerns public access to search warrants and related
material. The SD Supreme Court affirmed
the lower court, ruling against the Implicated Individual. The basic facts and result at the trial level
are summarized in ¶1. as follows:
[¶1.] A special agent of the
South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) sought several search
warrants involving the Implicated Individual. The circuit court approved the
warrants, which, along with the supporting affidavits and inventories, were
filed with the clerk of courts. The circuit court sealed the search warrant
files at the agent’s request, but later reconsidered its authority to do so
after members of the press sought access to the files. The court ultimately
ordered the search warrants and corresponding inventories to be unsealed.
The
SD Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, stating the following in the final
paragraph of the opinion:
[¶35.] Notwithstanding the
skilled advocacy on behalf of the parties, the question we confront here is not
a close one. The express provisions of SDCL 23A-35-4.1 control the access to
information issue presented in this case, as specifically contemplated by our
rules concerning access to court records. There is nothing new or novel about
our statutory analysis and conclusion, and there is no justification for
restricting the application of our decision to prospective, future cases. We
affirm the circuit court’s amended orders. With the exception of the affidavits
in support of the five search warrants, our current order sealing the Supreme
Court clerk’s appellate file will be dissolved following the expiration of the
time for petitioning forrehearing or the resolution of a petition seeking
rehearing, provided we do not grant the petition.
The
ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
This
decision may be accessed at
The
SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
Summary
follows:
BATCHELDER
v. BATCHELDER, 2021 S.D. 60: The trial court entered both a temporary
protection order and a permanent protection order against former husband. The trial court’s order was supported only by
checking “a box on the preprinted protection order form indicating it had
found the existence of domestic abuse” without issuing “any oral or written
findings.” The SD Supreme Court
reversed, recognizing that the trial court was clearly attempting to “to use
the permanent protection order remedy to stabilize the high-conflict
relationship between the parties,” but it was doing so without regard to whether the
wife actually needed protection. The Court stated in ¶25:
While we can appreciate the
court’s weariness with the parties’ quarreling and its stated goal of
addressing [the minor child’s] best interests, the court cannot seek to further
this end under a utilitarian view that overlooks the basic principles
associated with the protection order remedy.
The
Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
This
decision may be accessed at
The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning,
holding inter alia:
1) LWOP on 2nd
degree murder conviction upheld, but related restitution order reversed and
remanded
Summary follows:
STATE v. FALKENBERG,
2021 S.D. 59: Defendant was found guilty of 2nd degree murder, by
jury trial, and sentenced to Life without the possibility of parole
(LWOP). The trial court also entered an
extensive order regarding restitution.
On appeal, the SD Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but reversed
and remanded the restitution order. A
substantial portion of this opinion is devoted to a discussion of, “[w]hether the circuit court’s restitution order violated
[Defendant’s] due process rights and the separation of powers doctrine.” Portions of the Court’s discussion on
restitution are set forth here:
[¶54.] On
appeal, Falkenberg argues that the circuit court’s restitution award to the
Fund and the family was open-ended, speculative, and in contravention of SDCL
23A-28-3 and his due process rights.
* * *
[¶63.] For
the reasons explained above, we reverse the portion of the circuit court’s
restitution order requiring Falkenberg to pay up to $15,000 to the Fund and up
to $40,000 to the victims for future counseling expenses and remand for an
evidentiary hearing to address Falkenberg’s objections to the State’s requests.
If the State submits adequate foundational evidence, the court may order
Falkenberg to pay restitution for expenses that had already been incurred at
the time of sentencing as well as the cost of ascertainable counseling expenses
which, although not yet incurred, had been requested by the State at the time
of sentencing.
The ruling is unanimous (5-0) with the Court’s opinion
authored by Justice Kern.
This decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Adjudication of Delinquency Reversed;
2) Out-of-wedlock son permitted to challenge intestate
distribution;
Summaries follows:
INTEREST OF N.A., 2021 S.D. 57: Minor child was adjudicated as a delinquent
based upon allegation that she assaulted a police officer. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded,
finding that the police officer used excessive force in the events which
prompted the juvenile to react. The
Court stated:
[¶22.]
Based upon our de novo review of this constitutional issue, and after
considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude Officer Bassett used
excessive force to detain N.A. when he grabbed and pulled a non-threatening,
non-fleeing, and non-resisting female teenager to the ground in a dark room,
without warning.
The Court further held that the trial court did not properly
analyze and consider the juvenile’s claim of self-defense. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Justice Myren.
OLSON v. BERGGREN, 2021 S.D. 58: Deceased’s $ 2 million estate was distributed
as an intestate estate, pursuant to filings on behalf of 3 children born of two
different marriages. This intestate
distribution was made in 2014. Deceased
also fathered 1 son out-of-wedlock who eventually learned of the intestate
distribution and who filed suit in 2019 challenging the distribution and
seeking redress. The trial court ruled against the out-of-wedlock son on the
basis of summary judgment, holding his claims were untimely. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion
authored by Justice DeVaney.
(NOTE: this case is fact intensive and this summary is truly a
simple summary. The interested reader
should not hesitate to examine the full opinion for all the details related to
the facts and claims asserted by the out-of-wedlock son.)
These decisions may be accessed at