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

This case involved a dispute over custody of a minor child following the parents' divorce, where the original custody order was based on an agreement giving primary custody to the father. The mother sought to modify the custody arrangement, but the trial court denied her motion after applying the standard requiring proof of both a substantial change in circumstances and that modification served the child's best interests. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that when the initial custody decree stems from an agreement between the parties, the moving parent need only demonstrate that the child's welfare and best interests require a change, without showing a substantial change in circumstances. The trial court had erred as a matter of law by imposing the incorrect two-prong burden of proof. The case was remanded for new findings and conclusions under the proper standard.

family law

This case involved an appeal from the South Dakota Water Management Board's approval of a water permit allowing the South Dakota Conservancy District to appropriate water from the Oahe Reservoir for transfer to ETSI, which planned to use it in a coal slurry pipeline in Wyoming. The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's upholding of the Board's decision. The court reasoned that the special legislation authorized the permit, proper notice and multiple hearings were provided allowing public participation and intervention, and under the applicable standard of review, the administrative decision was not clearly erroneous or procedurally flawed.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a claim of wrongful conversion where the plaintiff sued after the defendant, a landlord and salvage operator, took possession of the plaintiff's damaged car left in a leased building, demanded storage fees, and dismantled the vehicle when fees were refused. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2,200 in actual damages and $6,600 in punitive damages, plus interest added by the court. The trial court granted a new trial on punitive damages unless the plaintiff accepted a reduction to $1,000 and later eliminated the interest from the judgment. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the reduction of punitive damages, holding that the award was not excessive under the circumstances of the defendant's deliberate actions, and addressed the trial court's authority regarding post-judgment modifications to interest.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a conviction of Harold Swallow for sexual contact with a child and sexual exploitation of a child under South Dakota statutes, based on testimony from minor victims about sexual touching and nude photography at his home. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence of twenty-one years. It held that the information sufficiently apprised the defendant despite imprecise dates and citation errors, as time was not a material element and no prejudice resulted; intent elements were adequately covered by cited statutes, jury instructions, and trial evidence; an improper juror-witness communication created no prejudice; and newly discovered evidence rebutting a rebuttal witness would not likely alter the outcome given the strength of primary testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by the State of South Dakota from a trial court's order granting a mistrial with prejudice in a first-degree murder prosecution of Collins Catch The Bear. After the jury was sworn, the prosecutor made remarks during opening statement about a letter the defendant wrote while in custody, which the trial court found improperly commented on his silence and was intended to provoke a mistrial motion; the court dismissed the case with prejudice on double jeopardy grounds. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's finding of intentional provocation by the prosecutor was clearly erroneous based on the record, including the judge's initial characterization of the conduct as gross negligence rather than intentional misconduct. Because the prosecutor's error did not meet the standard for barring retrial under double jeopardy precedents like Oregon v. Kennedy, the case was remanded for a new trial. The court emphasized that a mistrial with prejudice was not the appropriate remedy for the prosecutor's negligent but non-intentional error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a state contract for printing legislative proceedings in South Dakota. Fenske Printing sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of Purchasing and Printing to accept its bid after the Director instead awarded the contract to State Publishing, whose lower bid included paper samples that did not exactly match the required fifty-pound weight for both specified colors. The trial court dismissed the application, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that bids must substantially comply with specifications rather than conform inflexibly, and State Publishing's submission met this standard because it provided samples of the correct colors and weight without giving it any material advantage. Any deviation was deemed trivial and did not prevent testing or violate the requirement under SDCL 5-23-9 that bids follow the Bureau of Administration's schedules and specifications.

business & regulatory

The case concerned Arcon Construction Co.'s breach of contract claims against the South Dakota Cement Plant, a state entity, for failing to deliver cement under two 1978 contracts for interstate highway projects, which delayed Arcon's work until later seasons. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict awarding Arcon over $1.1 million net after offsetting the plant's counterclaim. On appeal, the court held that the plant, as an arm of the state, was subject to suit because the UCC expressly applies to governmental agencies and waives sovereign immunity for contracts involving the sale of goods. It also addressed the applicable statute of limitations, jury instructions on damages and defenses, costs, and prejudgment interest, ultimately affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves former tenants suing their landlords' property manager and the owners for negligent misrepresentation after being told their lease would not be renewed, leading them to liquidate their farming operations, only for the manager to later offer to let them stay. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, which the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence showing the initial statement was false at the time it was made, a necessary element of negligent misrepresentation, and that the lease had expired without any right to renewal.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involved a civil tort action in which farm owner Ronald Mayrose sued Gary Fendrich for entering his property without permission, turning off electricity to a house and livestock building, starting a pickup truck and leaving it running, and draining its oil, causing alleged damages of $2300. The jury awarded Mayrose $2500 in damages (later adjusted), finding Fendrich liable, but also determined that his acts were not intentional on a special verdict form. The trial court denied Mayrose's request for treble damages under SDCL 22-34-2. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Fendrich failed to preserve his appellate issues at trial and that the plain error doctrine does not apply in civil cases; it further ruled that treble damages were unavailable because Fendrich had not been criminally prosecuted or convicted under the related statute SDCL 22-34-1, consistent with prior precedent.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedurecriminal law

The case involved Roger Phillip Clabaugh's appeal from his convictions for first-degree robbery and as an habitual criminal following the armed robbery of a Taco John's restaurant in Sioux Falls. Clabaugh challenged the erasure of police dispatch tapes as a due process violation, the denial of a mistrial after the prosecutor asked an improper question, and the use of an allegedly suggestive show-up identification procedure. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. It held that the tape erasure did not violate due process because the evidence was not material to the outcome and was erased in good faith as part of routine recycling. The court further ruled that the improper question caused no prejudice since it went unanswered, and that the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances despite its suggestiveness.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McQuillen, the defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree rape of a twelve-year-old girl, claiming that his oral and written confessions should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings during what he asserted was custodial interrogation in a locked police station room, as well as involuntariness due to inducements. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the initial questioning was not custodial interrogation under Miranda because the defendant voluntarily went to the station, was told he was not under arrest, and the circumstances did not impose restraints equivalent to formal arrest as defined in Oregon v. Mathiason and California v. Beheler. The court further held that Miranda warnings were given and initialed before the written confessions, that later statements were not tainted fruits of any violation, and that the confessions were voluntary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the State of South Dakota appealing a trial court order suppressing evidence in a prosecution of David Holland for second-degree murder and first- and second-degree manslaughter arising from the 1981 death of a 23-month-old child in the defendant's care. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, addressing five issues including the admissibility of the defendant's statements to police and out-of-state investigators, photographs of the body, expert testimony on battered child syndrome, evidence of prior acts, and whether to reopen the suppression hearing. The court applied Miranda standards to evaluate whether the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination during custodial interviews, considered the requirements for admitting other-acts evidence under SDCL 19-12-5 to show absence of accident or mistake, and reviewed the trial court's exercise of discretion in weighing probative value against prejudice under SDCL 19-12-3. It concluded that certain statements and evidence were properly suppressed while other items could be admissible, deferring to trial court findings on disputed facts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of Gordon James Feyereisen on two counts of distributing LSD in South Dakota. An undercover officer testified about drug purchases facilitated by a bartender from a third person identified as the defendant through descriptions and overheard references to his name. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the name references were not hearsay and provided sufficient corroboration for the accomplice's testimony identifying the defendant. It also rejected a post-appeal motion for remand to consider newly discovered evidence due to statutory time limits.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between S & S Trucking and Whitewood Motors over a five-year lease for operating a truck stop, specifically regarding fuel pricing terms and rental payments. The circuit court found that both parties breached the lease—S & S by overcharging for fuel beyond the refiner price plus trucking and rent, and Whitewood by terminating the lease early—and awarded damages to each. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting the lease term "supplier" as referring to the fuel refiners rather than S & S based on the contract language and negotiation evidence, holding that Whitewood's termination precluded future lost profits claims while upholding the trial court's calculation of rental deficiencies owed by Whitewood.

business & regulatoryproperty