Charles S. Hanson

This case involved Terminal Grain Corporation suing South Dakota farmer Glenn Freeman for damages from his alleged failure to deliver wheat under two 1972 oral contracts, after an earlier Iowa action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Freeman, who represented himself, asserted counterclaims for libel, slander, and malicious prosecution that the trial court dismissed on statute of limitations and summary judgment grounds, while the jury returned a split verdict awarding Terminal Grain $89.80 on one count but finding for Freeman on the other. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed all rulings, concluding that Freeman was not a "merchant" under the UCC so the statute of frauds applied to bar recovery on the undelivered grain, that the completed delivery was enforceable regardless of contract formalities, and that no reversible errors occurred in the pretrial motions, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Marshall, defendant Richard Marshall was convicted of murdering Martin Montileaux after a joint charge with Russell Means, who was acquitted in a separate trial; Marshall appealed on multiple grounds including denial of a change of venue due to pretrial publicity about Native Americans and the American Indian Movement, refusal of jury sequestration and individual voir dire, insufficiency of evidence on premeditation, limits on cross-examination, and rejection of proposed jury instructions on informant testimony and malice aforethought. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pretrial motions because the publicity was largely factual and not inflammatory, as shown by Means's acquittal and the thorough voir dire process that revealed no biased jurors. The court further ruled that malice aforethought is not an element of murder under state law, which requires only a premeditated design to effect death, and that the evidence supported the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendants convicted of riot where arson was committed, arising from a February 1973 protest at the Custer County Courthouse by American Indian Movement members and others protesting the manslaughter charge filed after the stabbing death of Wesley Bad Heart Bull. The protest escalated into violence, including assaults on officers, property damage, and multiple arson incidents that damaged the courthouse and other buildings. On appeal, the defendants raised issues including trial disruption from spectator misconduct, the handling of jury selection, and the cross-examination of one defendant about prior convictions. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial after the disruption, no reversible error in the cross-examination given other admitted felonies, and no merit in the remaining assignments of error.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Brennan v. Brennan, a divorce case, the defendant appealed the portion of the final decree that ordered him to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses. The parties stipulated that the court would determine the fees based on an itemized statement, but the trial court inserted the requested amount of $3,066.07 into the decree ex parte without granting the defendant's request for a hearing on his objections. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the fee award and remanded the matter, reasoning that the stipulation left the fees open for judicial determination but did not waive the defendant's rights to notice and an evidentiary hearing on their necessity and reasonableness, as required by procedural due process under SDCL 15-17-7 and SDCL 25-4-38. The court emphasized that a valid order for attorneys' fees in divorce cases requires compliance with fundamental fairness and proper application with notice.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned George Asimakis's appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions on two counts of third-degree burglary and the sentences imposed after a prior guilty plea to grand larceny had been vacated. The court affirmed the denial of the writ. It reasoned that three of the appellant's claims had already been resolved in a prior appeal, that the burglary convictions involved separate offenses from the larceny so that a harsher sentence was permissible under North Carolina v. Pearce, that the Board of Pardons and Paroles had discretion to set the term and was presumed to have credited time served, and that the appellant had not subpoenaed his accomplices who had invoked their right against self-incrimination.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by employee Lloyd Harden against his employer, the South Dakota Credit Union League, and its insurer, alleging that driving a smaller, harder-riding company car aggravated his preexisting back condition and caused a herniated disc requiring surgery. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the award of benefits that had been granted by the Commissioner of Labor and Management Relations and affirmed by the circuit court. The court reasoned that the medical testimony only showed the car "could have" aggravated the condition, which was insufficient to prove a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and that the commissioner's findings were not entitled to deference because he had not personally heard the witnesses testify. The court declined to address the employer's additional arguments on notice and the statute of limitations.

labor & employment