SD Supreme Court Hands Down 3 Decisions

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Denial of Motion to Suppress upheld;

 

2)   Stare Decisis overturned, upholding previous dissenting view of Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry;

 

3) For-Profit corporation (Black Hills Advocate LLC) not eligible for appointment as guardian.

  

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. HOLY, 2025 S.D. 19:  After having his Motion to Suppress Evidence denied, Defendant secured the following result in the trial court:

[¶13.] At a subsequent court trial, the circuit court relied upon stipulated facts to find [Defendant] guilty of both counts. The court suspended a prison sentence and ordered supervised probation for the possession of a controlled substance charge and imposed court costs for the misdemeanor drug paraphernalia charge.

This appeal focuses exclusively on the Motion to Suppress with Defendant arguing, “that police officers unreasonably extended the stop by asking about contraband without any level of suspicion.”  The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s argument and affirmed.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

EARLL v. FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE, 2025 S.D. 20: Motor vehicle accident resulted in death.  Parents and Estate of Deceased collected $25,000 from tortfeasor’s liability insurer and then collected $75,000 from UIM (Underinsured Motorist) coverage of vehicle being driven by Deceased.  Parents and Estate sought additional coverage of $250,000 under “separate motor vehicle policy they purchased from Farmers Mutual, which provided coverage for two vehicles owned by the [family] that were not involved in the accident.”  The trial court ruled for Farmers Mutual, applying the precedent of De Smet Insurance Company of South Dakota v. Pourier, 2011 S.D. 47, ¶ 12, 802 N.W.2d 447, 451–52 (a 3/2 decision “which held that an ‘owned but not insured’ exclusion for UIM coverage was enforceable and not void as against public policy.”)  In this appeal, family requests the SD Supreme Court to overrule the Pourier decision, and the SD Supreme Court does so!  In overturning precedent, the Court handed down a lengthy opinion which “consider[s] the [four prongs of] the well-established doctrine of stare decisis.”  (the four prongs being, “(1) Quality of prior decision, (2) Workability, (3) Consistency, (4)Subsequent developments, and (5) Extent of Reliance.”) NOTE: The discussion by the SD Supreme Court in connection with the articulated criteria needed to overturn stare decisis precedent is traceable to its 2024 decision involving Governor Noem’s Request concerning potential conflicts of interest for legislators and an older 1920 Decision.  A concluding paragraph of the opinion states:

[¶48.] While we acknowledge Pourier’s careful reasoning by a sharply divided Court, our review of the public policy of this State for UM/UIM coverage and the Janus factors lead us to conclude that Pourier is an outlier in this Court’s decisions. For the reasons discussed above, we reverse our decision in Pourier and we hold that the “owned but not insured” exclusion to UIM coverage in motor vehicle policies—when used to deny coverage to an insured individual under circumstances like those in this case—violates South Dakota public policy.

NOTE: Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry’s dissenting opinion in Pourier was examined and found to be the proper rationale by this unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF FLYTE, 2025 S.D. 21: In adjudicating conflicting requests [by Daughter and Son] to be appointed guardian of a dementia-afflicted parent who owns land worth more than $2 million, the trial court, acting sua sponte, appointed “Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation” as guardian.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

[¶56.] We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint [Daughter] as Gerda’s guardian and conservator. We also conclude that SDCL 29A-5-304 does not restrict the circuit court’s authority to appoint a third-party guardian or conservator sua sponte where such appointment is in the best interests of the protected person. However, we hold that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize for-profit entities to be appointed as guardians or conservators, with the exception of statutorily qualified banks and trust companies. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s appointment of BHA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we award [Son] one-half of his requested appellate attorney fee.

This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

Limited Personal Injury Award upheld by 3 Justice Majority

 

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

 

1)    Limited Personal Injury Award upheld by 3 Justice Majority

 

 

Summary follows:

 

BRAUN v. WOLLMAN, 2024 S.D. 83: This is an action for personal injuries sustained when Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff.  Plaintiff sought substantial damages for “personal injuries, pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.”  The jury awarded $125,000, an amount much lower than requested.  The trial court, relying on the business records exception to the hearsay rule, permitted Defendant to introduce extensive medical records of the Plaintiff in cross examination of Plaintiff.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a 3-1-1 ruling.  All five Justices agreed that the trial court erred in the admission of the “contested medical records in their entirety.” (quoted language from Justice Kern’s opinion, ¶50).  The majority opinion, authored by Justice DeVaney, holds that the error was not prejudicial.  Justice Kern and Justice Myren filed separate opinions, each expressing the view that prejudicial error occurred and stating that they would reverse and remand for new trial.

 

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 three decisions this morning:

1)    Appeal dismissed for failure to serve Notice of Appeal;

 

2)   Request for Change of Judge improperly denied;

 

3)   5 year prison sentence upheld

 

Summaries follows:

 

DITTUS v. BLACK HILLS CARE & REHAB AND AVANTARA, 2024 S.D. 80: Appellant’s effort to appeal results in a dismissal because of failure to properly serve a Notice of Appeal.  The result in the trial court is described in the opening paragraph as follows: 

[¶1.] In a lawsuit claiming a wrongful termination, Krista Dittus appeals from an order striking her response to a motion for summary judgment, and from  an order granting summary judgment in favor of RC North SD Skilled Nursing  Facility, LLC d/b/a Avantara North (Avantara).

The problem with Appellant’s effort to appeal is described as follows:

 

[¶5.] Thereafter, Avantara filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on Dittus’s failure to serve the notice of appeal as required by SDCL 15-26A-4. In support of the motion, Avantara included in its attached documents an email from a Unified Judicial System (UJS) employee who confirmed the notice of appeal had only been “EFiled” but not served through the Odyssey system.

The SD Supreme Court agreed with Appellee’s argument and dismissed the appeal, holding:

[¶11.] Dittus does not dispute that the notice of appeal was not served on Avantara’s counsel. In both her response to the motion to dismiss the appeal and her initial appellate brief, Dittus states, without further explanation, that the omission “was an inadvertent error.” Moreover, the fact the notice of appeal was only electronically filed, but not served, was readily apparent in the Odyssey confirmation email sent to Dittus’s counsel on October 13. Under SDCL 16-21A-7(2), “[e]lectronic service is not effective if the party making service learns that the attempted service did not reach the person to be served.” Because service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, we lack appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 

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

 

ESTATE OF PAUL O’FARRELL v. GRAND VALLEY HUTTERIAN BRETHREN, 2024 S.D. 81: Judge Spears, having denied a request for change of judge, ruled for Defendants and awarded attorney fees.  This decision vacates all orders entered by Circuit Judge Spears and reverses the Circuit’s Presiding Judge’s Decision to Deny the Affidavit for the purpose of disqualifying Judge Spears.  The case is “remand[ed] for the appointment of a replacement judge.” This ruling is a 3-1-1 decision. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren. Justice Salter dissents. Chief Justice Jensen concurs in part and dissents in part.

 

STATE v. BELT, 2024 S.D. 82: The lower court’s 5 year prison sentence is affirmed in this decision.  The situation is adequately described in the opening paragraph as follows:

[¶1.] Following a jury trial, William Belt was convicted of sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. In this appeal, he challenges the circuit court’s decision to allow expert testimony concerning the presence of inconclusive male DNA found in samples taken from the victim. He also challenges the court’s jury instruction that referenced the “interests of society” and the court’s decision to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

Seven New Decisions by the SD Supreme Court this morning

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down seven decisions this morning.  Five of these involve criminal proceedings and the Court rules in favor of the State (Attorney General) in each one and in unanimous rulings.  Each of the seven decisions is unanimous with the Court holding, inter alia:

1)    3 consecutive sentences of 30 years each upheld;

 

2)   Consent to breath test not the same as consent to blood draw;

 

3)   Employment law dispute reversed and remanded;

 

4)   Issues in Declaratory Judgment action warrant determination by jury trial

 

5)   75 year sentence on 1^st degree manslaughter upheld for 19 year old;

 

6)   Rape victim’s mental health records protected from disclosure;

 

7)   Father (joint legal custodian) ordered to cooperate in passport application process to facility Mother’s effort to vacation in Mexico with children

 

Summaries follows:

STATE v. RUDLOFF, 2024 S.D. 73: Defendant was found guilty, by jury, of THREE counts of 1^st degree Rape of Minor under 13. The trial court sentenced him to 30 years on each count, to run consecutively.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

BLAZER v. DEP’T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2024 S.D. 74: Driver submitted voluntarily to breath test after accident, but refused to submit to a blood draw.  Dept. of Public Safety served notice of intent to permanently disqualify driver’s CDL license (“for life”).  Administrative appeal affirmed the Dept. of Public Safety, but trial court reversed, ruling in favor of Driver, holding that Driver’s “voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis such that his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL.” The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding in favor of Dept. of Public Safety.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

MATTA v. DAKOTA PROVISIONS, 2024 S.D. 75: Employment law dispute which is adequately described in the 1^st and last paragraphs of the Court’s opinion, as follows:

[¶1.] Angel Matta was hired as a production worker by Dakota Provisions in February 2020. Throughout his short tenure, Dakota Provisions documented concerns with Matta’s work attendance. Matta was injured at work on March 23, 2020, which caused him to miss several weeks of work. Matta filed a workers’ compensation claim due to his injuries and Dakota Provisions terminated Matta one month later. Matta filed suit alleging wrongful termination and that his termination violated public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment on Matta’s claims which the circuit court granted. Matta appeals the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

* * * *

[¶36.] We affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment as to Matta’s claim that he was terminated in violation of the alleged contract created by the Policy as well as Matta’s claim that his termination violated public policy as stated in SDCL 20-13-10. We reverse the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Matta’s claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of SDCL 62-1-16 and remand for further proceedings.

This ruling is unanimous, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

CAL SD, LLC v. INTERWEST LEASING, LLC, 2024 S.D. 76: Declaratory Judgment action relating to breach of a contract for sale of real estate.  Trial judge determined that the issue was a matter of law and submitted the dispute to a jury which ruled for plaintiff.  Defendant appeals, arguing that the issue was a matter of equity and should not have been submitted to a “binding jury determination.”  Defendant also asserts error in the jury instructions.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

STATE v. BEAR ROBE, 2024 S.D. 77: Defendant (19 years old at time of incident) pled guilty to 1^st degree manslaughter; as part of the plea agreement the State recommended 75 year sentence with 10 years suspended.  PSI was favorable to Defendant. Several “family, friends and community members” supporting letters for Defendant, including, “Three workers from the Rapid City Club for Boys [who] characterized [Defendant] as a young man of unusually good character, a fine man, and one of the last people they thought would be in this trouble.”  The trial court sentenced Defendant to 75 years, with 0 years suspended.  The SD Supreme Court Affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

STATE v. ANTUNA, 2024 S.D. 78: Defendant in 3^rd degree in prosecution sought mental health records of victim.  Trial court, “ordered the State to speak with [Victim] to investigate whether any mental health records existed, obtain any records by subpoena, and provide them to the court for an in-camera inspection.''  State appeals.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, directing the trial court to grant the State’s Motion to Quash.  This opinion discusses and applies SD's Marsy's Law, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974).  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

WASILK v. WASILK, 2024 S.D. 79: Mother and Father (ex-spouses) share joint legal custody of 3 children. Mother “sought to take the children on vacation to Mexico and requested [Father’s] consent on the applications for their passports.”  Father denied consent.  Mother went to court, successfully seeking and receiving “an order directing [Father’s] participation in the passport application process.”  Father appeals.  The SD Supreme Court upholds the trial court’s ruling in favor of Mother.  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

                    

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Three Criminal Cases. Three affirmations by unanimous (5-0) rulings.

Three Criminal Cases. Three affirmations by unanimous (5-0) rulings.

The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning: 

1)    Presumption of probation not applicable to revocation proceeding;

 

2)   1^st Degree Manslaughter Conviction upheld;

 

3)   Failure to appoint counsel in revocation hearing upheld as non-prejudicial

 

Summaries follows:

STATE v. DIETZ, 2024 S.D. 70: Defendant “pleaded guilty to two counts of counterfeiting lottery tickets in two separate files” and was given “five-year suspended sentences on each conviction.” Thereafter, Defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 5 years prison.  Defendant appeals.  The SD Supreme Court affirms, holding that Defendant indeed had a right to appeal, stating:

[¶18.] Accordingly, a right to appeal an order revoking a suspended execution of sentence exists under SDCL 15-26A-3(4), as such an order qualifies as a “final order affecting a substantial right, made in special proceedings, or upon summary application in an action after judgment[.]

But also holding that the “presumption of probation in SDCL 22-6-11” is applicable only at the time of sentencing and not in a “probation revocation proceeding.” 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

STATE v. PFEIFFER, 2024 S.D. 71: Defendant (who was 18 at the time of the incident) was found guilty, by jury following a 7 day trial, of 1^st degree manslaughter in connection with the accidental shooting of his friend.  The trial court, “sentenced [Defendant] to thirty years in prison with twenty-three years suspended and credit for time served.”  Defendant appealed, primarily arguing 1) error in the jury instructions but also arguing 2) error in the trial court’s refusal to allow the jury to be told that the Deputy State’s Attorney had said (in a written brief in a bond hearing), that, Defendant “pull[ed] the trigger, in the belief that the gun was not loaded.”  The SD Supreme Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments and affirmed.  This is a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion by Justice DeVaney.

 

STATE v. FULLER, 2024 S.D. 72: Defendant was on felony probation for the drug charge of possession of more than 2 ounces of marijuana.  After two post-sentencing arrests, a probation revocation proceeding was instituted.  The trial court appointed two attorneys to assist Defendant in the revocation hearing.  After separate motions to withdraw by each attorney were granted, the trial court proceeded with the hearing (Defendant acting pro se) and imposed the previously-suspended 2 year prison sentence.  Appellate counsel was appointed.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, holding,

[¶62.] Although the [trial] court did not comply with the statute [SDCL 23A-40-6]  that required it to appoint counsel for [Defendant] in this revocation proceeding, [Defendant]  has not established prejudice.

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice Salter.

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

Big Horn Sheep Covenant Enforced; remedy for breach of 1995 oral land contract denied

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    “no build” covenant for Big Horn Sheep enforced;

 

2)   Remedy for breach of 1995 oral contract regarding real property denied in 3-2 ruling.

 

Summaries follows:

 

SPRING CANYON PROPERTIES, LLC v. CAL SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68:  Owner of recently-acquired property located outside of Rapid City started construction of a fenced area for a garden, with construction of contained an “overhead truss” structure for anticipated “hail netting.” Owner of neighboring lot (and prior owner of lot in question) filed suit to enforce “restrictive no build covenant.”  The trial court granted an injunction requiring the removal of the “all overhead components of the building structure in the ‘No Build’ zone [and also] enjoin[ing Defendanst] from rebuilding or placing any new structure in the ‘No Build’ zone that exceeds 8’ in height as measured from ground level.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, but also held that on remand the 8’ height prohibition was to be removed because the height restriction was beyond the relief requested and was not supported by the “no build covenant,” and was not mandated by “Pennington County Ordinance.”  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

NOTE: The “no build” covenant states that its provisions were created for “the express purpose of allowing the free movement of big horn sheep in [the] wilderness preserve and to preclude any new fencing of areas…”

 

A photo of the garden fence and truss structure was included in the Court’s opinion and I have copied it at the bottom of this e-mail message. 

 

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON, 2024 S.D. 69: Parents deeded property to Daughter in 1995 under oral agreement described as follows in

[Daughter] and her family could live rent-free in [an adjoining] home. The agreement also contemplated that [Daughter] would transfer the [deeded property] equally to her four siblings and herself once she satisfied the mortgage on the [newly-constructed] home [on the deeded property.]

In 2005, surviving mother confirmed in writing that this was the intention of deceased father and mother in 1995 when making the “oral contract” with Daughter.

Daughter brought partition suit in 2018 in regard to ownership of adjoining property.  Brother answered, “claim[ing the 1995 oral contract] could be enforced through specific performance and partition of the [deeded property] or, in the alternative, an award of damages.”

Trial Court granted summary judgment for Daughter and against brother based, inter alia, upon the 6 year statute of limitations found in  SDCL 15-2-13.

The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This is a split decision (3-2).  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Salter. 

Justice DeVaney filed a dissenting opinion in regard to the application of the 6 year statute of limitations, taking issue with the majority’s ruling in regard to when Brother (and siblings) had notice of Daughter’s intent to breach the oral contract and when the cause of action “accrued.”  Justice Kern agrees with Justice DeVaney’s view.  

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

Attached is a photo of the “garden fence” which is the subject of SPRING CANYON PROPERTIES, LLC v. CAL SD, LLC, 2024 S.D. 68, summarized above:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Granting Access to Victim's Journals triggers analysis of Marsy's Law

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

 

1)    Order granting access to victim’s journals reversed (Marsy’s law applied)

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. WALDNER, 2024 S.D. 67: Co-Defendants “were indicted on varying degrees of rape and sexual contact a minor less than sixteen years of age.” Defendants were provided portions of a journal maintained by minor which detailed the conduct in question.  In response thereto, Defendants “sought other journals and diaries written by [minor] through a subpoena duces tecum.”  Trial court denied minor’s motion to quash, allowing access for Defendants.  Taking an intermediate appeal, the SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded.  This opinion analyzes and applies Marsy’s Law, an Amendment to the SD Constitution approved by 60% of popular vote in 2016.  This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

  

This decision may be accessed at

 

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