Francis G. Dunn

In Jones v. State, Donna Jones was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting the distribution of LSD and received a ten-year sentence plus a fine; she later petitioned for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, but the post-conviction court denied relief after concluding she had waived that right. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings, determining there was no evidence that Jones made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of her constitutional right to effective counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the South Dakota Constitution. The court reasoned that the trial judge's warnings about counsel's performance occurred outside Jones's presence, no discussion informed her of the issues or sought her understanding, and factors such as retained counsel or her participation in defense strategy did not establish waiver. The opinion stressed that any waiver requires affirmative judicial inquiry to confirm the defendant's awareness of the right and its relinquishment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a civil lawsuit by Ann Ruple against Earl Brooks for intentional infliction of emotional distress after Brooks made multiple obscene telephone calls to Ruple and her household, including calls to her twelve-year-old babysitter. Brooks had previously pleaded guilty to related criminal charges under South Dakota law for using a telephone to harass with obscene language. The trial court granted a directed verdict on liability after the plaintiff's case, leaving only damages for the jury, which awarded $5,000 in actual damages and $15,000 in punitive damages. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established the required elements of the tort—an intentional and unreasonable act that the defendant should have known would cause severe emotional distress—without needing jury resolution on liability. The court rejected arguments that the defendant's motives or the timing of the directed verdict warranted reversal.

torts & liability

This case is an attorney malpractice suit brought by Verenna Staab against her former lawyer, Milton Cameron, alleging that his unauthorized execution of a purchase option and other actions in a 1967 land sale transaction caused her financial losses and led to a judgment requiring specific performance of the contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cameron on collateral estoppel grounds based on three prior appeals between Staab and the buyer, Alden Skoglund. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment but held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the prior cases addressed enforceability of the land contract rather than the attorney's liability. The court reasoned that Staab had ratified the underlying contract through her prior conduct and litigation, leaving no genuine issues of material fact to support a separate malpractice claim against Cameron.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over a 1974 real estate sales contract for land in South Dakota that was signed by the sellers Everett Eneboe and buyers Paul and Glenadene Aamot but not by co-owner Evelyn Eneboe. After the buyers sought specific performance and the parties submitted the matter to church-based mediation and arbitration, the arbitrators divided the property equally instead of addressing the submitted issues of whether the contract was binding and what rental was due. The trial court vacated the arbitration award and ordered specific performance of the contract, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the arbitrators exceeded their powers under the arbitration agreement and state law by failing to decide the precise issues presented to them. It further concluded that the contract was enforceable against both sellers based on their conduct and acknowledgments of payments.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a tenured teacher, Daniel Sutera, whose contract was not renewed by the Sully Buttes School Board as part of a staff reduction due to declining enrollment. The board retained a probationary teacher for a coaching position instead, claiming Sutera was unqualified despite his certification and prior coaching experience. The trial court found Sutera qualified and ordered reinstatement after determining the board violated its own staff reduction policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the board's decision rested on an erroneous factual basis regarding Sutera's qualifications, while evidence showed he had successfully performed the relevant duties.

labor & employment

In State v. Braun, the defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence after a police officer observed him backing into another vehicle, noted signs of intoxication, and administered failed sobriety tests; additional officers corroborated his impaired condition through observations of slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and odor of alcohol. The defendant appealed, claiming insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that his sentence improperly punished him for refusing a chemical test, exercising his right to a jury trial, and alleged perjury. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the testimony of four officers provided ample evidence for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentence fell within statutory limits without any demonstrated intent to penalize the exercise of rights. The court noted that sentencing judges have broad discretion and may consider a defendant's truthfulness at trial.

criminal lawprocedure