Oren P. Coler

This case concerned proceedings to adjudicate two young children as dependent and neglected and to terminate their parents' rights. The trial court found the children dependent and neglected based on evidence of inadequate care and then held a dispositional hearing the same day, entering an order terminating parental rights. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the termination order, concluding that the dispositional hearing was scheduled with only two hours' notice, depriving the parents of a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present evidence in violation of due process and statutory requirements for juvenile proceedings.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the conviction of appellant in Lincoln County circuit court (venue transferred from Minnehaha County) for third-degree burglary of a pickup truck with intent to commit larceny, under SDCL 22-32-9, resulting in a four-to-eight-year sentence. Appellant appealed, arguing denial of a fair trial due to the trial court's rejection of motions for a pretrial mental examination, trial continuance, separate jury voir dire, and a mistrial after a juror disclosed acquaintance with a witness. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the affidavit for mental examination raised no doubt about competency to stand trial and that voluntary intoxication or drug use did not negate criminal intent under SDCL 22-5-5, while the other procedural motions were properly denied based on the record and applicable statutes. The factual background included eyewitness accounts of appellant tampering with the vehicle and his post-arrest statements suggesting possible mental issues or intoxication, which the court found insufficient to require further examination or alter the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a father and son who sued tavern owners for negligence after the son was injured in a car accident in North Dakota, allegedly caused by an intoxicated driver who had been served alcohol by the defendants in violation of South Dakota laws prohibiting Sunday sales and sales to minors or intoxicated persons. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that, absent a dram shop or civil damage statute, common law does not impose liability on sellers of alcohol for injuries resulting from a buyer's intoxication, as the buyer's consumption is the proximate cause. The court reviewed the state's legislative history of enacting and repealing such statutes, as well as recent failed attempts to pass new ones, and declined to create a judicial remedy, leaving the matter to the legislature.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatorycriminal law

In Miller v. Miller, both parents sought modification of a 1974 divorce decree that had awarded custody of their three-year-old son to the paternal grandparents, following each parent's remarriage in 1975. The trial court consolidated the petitions, took evidence, and concluded that although circumstances had changed, neither parent's new situation provided a sufficiently stable home to justify removing the child from the grandparents, who continued to offer a fit environment. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous under RCP Rule 52(a) and that the parent seeking modification must prove both a substantial material change and that the child's best interests require the change, per SDCL 25-4-45 and 30-27-19 as interpreted in Masek v. Masek. The court noted the mother's visitation rights remained intact and she could reapply later if circumstances warranted.

family law

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for distributing marijuana under South Dakota law. The defendant appealed, arguing that the drug control statute was unconstitutional due to a defective title, unreasonable classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance, and improper delegation of authority, and that the trial court made errors regarding undercover agent testimony, jury instructions on entrapment, limits on cross-examination, and a special instruction to the jury. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute's title was valid under prior precedent, the classification had a rational basis and was presumed constitutional absent evidence to the contrary, and there were no reversible errors in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the appellant being charged with murder for fatally shooting Doyle Henry during a bar altercation in Pennington County, South Dakota, after Henry assaulted another patron. The jury convicted her of second-degree manslaughter rather than murder, and she appealed arguing errors in jury instructions on lesser included offenses, insufficient evidence for the conviction, and improper admission of statements. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the instructions properly allowed for lesser offenses under state law, the evidence supported the manslaughter verdict including on self-defense claims, and no reversible errors occurred in the trial proceedings. The core reasoning emphasized that the use of deadly force was not justified given the circumstances of the fight and the applicable standards for defense of others.

criminal law