Robert A. Amundson

A.P. & Sons Construction sued Earle Johnson and others seeking personal liability for unpaid labor and materials supplied during development of the Westview Addition after Bauman, who had arranged the project, defaulted on payments. The trial court ruled Johnson was not personally liable beyond his guarantee on the development loan secured by a mortgage on his land, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court found no joint venture between Johnson and Bauman because the parties anticipated separate profits rather than joint ones, with Bauman profiting only from home construction and Johnson receiving proceeds from lot sales only after the loan was repaid. Johnson had not contracted directly with A.P. & Sons or other contractors and had made no additional guarantees.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In State v. Jolley, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree felony murder and child abuse in connection with the death of his six-year-old son from blunt force trauma; his co-defendant had previously pleaded guilty to child abuse charges. Jolley appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding other-acts evidence about the co-defendant to show identity or modus operandi, by limiting inquiry into the sentence she avoided through her plea, and by admitting other-acts evidence against him. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the proffered other-acts evidence lacked sufficient similarity to the charged conduct to be admissible under the rules governing such evidence and that Jolley received an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the co-defendant about her plea agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether SkillPath, a not-for-profit corporation offering business seminars on topics like computer training and secretarial skills primarily to employees, was exempt from South Dakota sales and use taxes assessed by the Department of Revenue for seminars held in the state from 1996 to 1998. The hearing examiner initially found the seminars exempt under SDCL 10-45-12.1 as fitting SIC categories for data processing or business schools, but the Secretary of Revenue reversed this, classifying them instead under SIC 8299 or 7389, and the circuit court affirmed the tax assessment. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision, holding that SkillPath's services did not qualify as a vocational school or continuing education program under the statute's exemptions for educational services in major group 82 or continuing education programs. The court reasoned that tax exemptions must be strictly construed and that SkillPath failed to meet its burden of proving it fell within the exempt SIC classifications rather than the non-exempt ones.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Kevin Leisinger sued his former spouse Cheryl Jacobson for malicious prosecution, claiming she filed multiple criminal complaints against him during their divorce proceedings without probable cause, all of which were later dismissed or resulted in acquittal. A jury awarded Leisinger compensatory and punitive damages, and Jacobson appealed, challenging the trial court's jury instructions on prosecutorial discretion and arguing that the punitive damages were excessive. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case, applying review standards that require jury instructions supported by the evidence and assessing damages for abuse of discretion absent constitutional claims.

family lawtorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case concerned motions by court-appointed defense attorneys to withdraw from representing indigent criminal defendants on appeal, on the grounds that the appeals were frivolous, and whether the traditional Anders procedure for such withdrawals should continue in South Dakota. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the existing Anders approach should be replaced by a new state rule requiring counsel to file a brief with a Section A certifying a thorough review and lack of meritorious issues, plus a Section B allowing the client to assert any claims of error. The core reasoning rested on U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Gideon v. Wainwright, Griffin v. Illinois, Douglas v. California, and Anders v. California, which guarantee equal appellate rights and counsel for indigent defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment, while tailoring the procedure to balance ethical obligations against those rights and avoid meaningless appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

In Beck v. City of Rapid City, plaintiffs sought class certification in a lawsuit to recover sales taxes paid to the city on businesses at the Rapid City Airport during a period of invalid annexation, following a prior ruling that the annexation lacked contiguity. The circuit court granted class certification for those who paid the taxes, but the City appealed, arguing that its own administrative refund process with $250,000 appropriated was superior to a class action. The South Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case for reexamination, holding that the circuit court must specifically determine whether the class action meets the superiority requirement under SDCL 15-6-23 and whether the class is adequately defined, as the administrative remedy and issues of class manageability and notice were not fully addressed.

taxesprocedure