Two New Decisions by the SD Supreme Court this morning

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Cooperative Grazing Association Dispute;

 

2)   Assault convictions against ex-wife affirmed, but “harassing and threatening” conduct conviction reversed;

 

 

Summaries follows:

NELSON v. ESTATE OF CAMPBELL, 2023 S.D. 14: This dispute and the judicial rulings are not easily summarized.  Below is the opening paragraph of the opinion:

 

[¶1.] The Estate of Gordon Campbell (Estate) sought to withdraw real property from the Redwater Grazing Association (Redwater), a cooperative grazing association, previously formed by several members, including Campbell, who had contributed property to Redwater. Another member of Redwater, John Nelson, asserted that the Estate was not authorized to remove the land from Redwater. Alternatively, he claimed that he had entered into a contract with the Estate to purchase the land from the Estate. Nelson and Redwater both filed various claims and counterclaims against the Estate and against Jared Capp, another party seeking to purchase the land from the Estate. The circuit court granted specific performance to the Estate, requiring Redwater to deliver the deed for the property to the Estate. The court also granted summary judgment against Nelson and Redwater and dismissed the remaining claims. Nelson and Redwater appeal.1 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  If the reader seeks more details, please look at the opinion which may be accessed through the link below.

 

STATE v. PENEAUX, 2023 S.D. 15: Defendant was found guilty, by jury, of six counts in total, five of which related to Aggravated Assault against his ex-wife and the 6^th count was for “threatening and harassing conduct” related to his efforts to get his ex-wife to dismiss the charges while the charges were pending.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the assault convictions.  But, the Court reversed and vacated the conviction for “threatening and harassing conduct,” holding that while the conduct of the Defendant was “threatening and intimidating,” his activities were not “obscene or lewd, nor can they be construed to suggest a lewd or lascivious act” as required by SDCL 49-31-31(1).   The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice DeVaney.  All five justices agree that the assault convictions should be affirmed.  Justice Salter filed a dissenting opinion as to the reversal of the “threatening and harassing” conviction.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Ingestion not a basis for CGL disqualification

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 Ingestion guilty plea not a basis for CGL disqualification

STANLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2023 S.D. 13:  Defendant pled guilty to unauthorized ingestion of a controlled drug or substance.  Defendant’s arrest occurred while he was operating a motorcycle.  DPS notified Defendant that his CGL was disqualified for 1 year as a result of his guilty plea.  The ALJ agreed with DPS.  The Circuit Court reversed.  The SD Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court, stating:

 

[¶15.] The felony ingestion statute in SDCL 22-42-5.1 prohibits a person from “knowingly ingest[ing] a controlled drug or substance or hav[ing] a controlled drug or substance in an altered state in the body . . . .” There is no evidence or showing that Stanley utilized the motorcycle to commit the crime of ingestion of a controlled substance. The offense as committed by Stanley in this case is therefore not subject to mandatory CDL disqualification within SDCL 32-12A-36(4).

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Three decisions today by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1. Tort judgment enhanced by $700:

 

2. Work Comp appeal fails due to failure to notify DOL;

 

3. HSC permitted to administer psychotropic medication to patient involuntarily committed.

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

LAMB v. WINKLER, 2023 S.D. 10: Plaintiffs brought tort action for damages to the person of H and to their tractor as a result of decedent rear-ending H when he was driving the tractor.  (Decedent died as a result of this collision.)  Trial was to the Court, not by jury.  Trial court awarded total damages of $36,498.80.  The SD Supreme Court remanded, directing the trial court to increase the award by $700 to cover the cost of a new batter for the tractor.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

HUSSEIN v. SHOWPLACE WOOD PRODUCTS INC., 2023 S.D. 11: This is a Work Comp claim. The Administrative Law Judge granted summary judgment to employer and employer’s insurer.  The trial court dismissed the employee’s appeal because Notice of Appeal had not been served on the Dept. of Labor.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating:

 

[¶19.] Because Hussein did not serve his notice of appeal to the circuit court on the Department within 30 days after the ALJ served notice of its amended letter decision, the circuit court properly dismissed Hussein’s administrative appeal. Further, because the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction, this Court likewise lacks jurisdiction over the merits of Hussein’s appeal. See Cable v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2009 S.D. 59, ¶ 52, 769 N.W.2d 817, 833.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

 

JOHNSON v. B.T., 2023 S.D. 12: Involuntary commitment patient at Human Services Center (HSC) appeals the trial court’s ruling permitting HSC “to administer psychotropic medication to B.T. for up to one year.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

Intentional Property Damage Conviction Reversed

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Intentional property damage conviction reversed

 

STATE v. VANDYKE, 2023 S.D. 9: New wife and former wife had an unpleasant encounter in process of transferring minor children from one to the other.  Former wife (mother of children) pounded her fist on windshield of new wife’s car, causing damage.  State filed charge of intentional property damage.  Trial was to the Court, without jury. Trial judge found former wife guilty.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

 

[¶26.] Intentional damage to property, as described in SDCL 22-34-1, requires the State to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to cause damage to the affected property. It is not a strict liability offense for which a defendant who caused damage is necessarily guilty, and all appearances suggest that the circuit court erroneously accepted the State’s argument that it was. This error likely affected the outcome of this case by compelling a conviction solely as a consequence of the damage [former wife] caused. We reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

 

The Court’s ruling is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

8th Circuit holds SD's statutes unconstitutional for both initiation of statutes and amendment of the state constitution

 

In Heidelberger v Noem, handed down this morning, the 8^th Circuit has ruled on the constitutional challenges to SD’s regulations regarding the opportunity to initiate new statutes and to initiate constitutional amendments.  The trial court had held that the provisions of SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes) were too restrictive and in violation of the 1^st Amendment.  With respect to SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution), the trial court upheld its provisions.  The 8^th Circuit, considering cross-appeals, upheld the trial court’s ruling as to unconstitutionality of SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes), but reversed as to SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution).  As per this decision, the 8^th Circuit holds that BOTH  SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes) and SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution) are unconstitutional, in violation of the 1^st Amendment. 

 

The 8^th Circuit further held that the trial court’s creation of a “a new deadline of six months before the general election” for SDCL § 2-1-1.2 was inappropriate and remanded for its removal.

 

SD Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences of 60 years each

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1. Consecutive sentences of 60 years upheld

 

STATE v. MANNING, 2023 S.D. 7:  Defendant was convicted by jury of 2 counts of 1^st degree rape and 2 counts of sexual contact with child under 16.  The trial court sentenced Defendant to two 60 year terms in prison, to run consecutively.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  Circuit Judge Rasmussen sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Myren. 

 

Each of the following issues were addressed and resolved adversely to the Defendant:

 

1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Manning’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the two rape charges.

2. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Manning’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the two sexual contact charges in violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

3. Whether there was improper bolstering of witnesses at trial by the circuit court and the prosecution.

4. Whether the circuit court improperly closed the courtroom during the jury selection phase of Manning’s trial.

5. Whether Manning’s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment or constitutes an abuse of discretion.

6. Whether Manning received ineffective assistance of counsel.

7. Whether Manning was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the alleged errors

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

Rape convictions upheld; Evidence of “Advanced Consent” and Prior Sexual History properly excluded at trial.

 The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:

 

1)    Rape convictions upheld; Evidence of “Advanced Consent” and Prior Sexual History properly excluded at trial.

 

STATE v. MALCOLM, 2023 S.D. 6: Defendant was convicted by a jury of 9 counts of 3^rd degree rape and sentenced to 50 years in prison by the trial court, with 15 years suspended. Defendant and Victim had been living together and Victim died after the encounter in question.  The cause of death for the Victim was determined to be, “fatal combination of Baclofen and Hydroxyzine toxicity, an apparent overdose for which police officers determined [Defendant] was not responsible.”  On appeal Defendant asserts 5 points of error including the argument that the trial court wrongly denied him the opportunity to present evidence of “advanced consent” by the victim before she passed out, consistent with their prior sexual history (evidence of which was also denied).  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that “advanced consent” is not a valid defense in a situation where the Victim is not capable of withdrawing consent when she is passed out. The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

The Court also rejected Defendant’s other assertions of error, with the exception of his “ineffective assistance of counsel” claim.  The Court declined to consider on this issue on direct appeal, “leav[ing Defendant’s] ineffective assistance claims for further development should he pursue a habeas corpus action.”

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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