Alex Rentto

In State v. Anderberg, the defendant was charged with assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury after being involved in an incident where the victim was struck with a pool cue and kicked outside a bar in Sioux Falls, leading to a skull fracture. A jury convicted him, and the trial court sentenced him to 18 months in prison with the last six months suspended. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defendant aided and abetted the assault under state law even if he did not strike the blow, that any challenge to the preliminary hearing was waived by pleading not guilty, that aiding and abetting does not require proof of a prior conspiracy, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order a presentence investigation. The court found the evidence sufficient to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barcley, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of forgery in the third degree and one count of attempted forgery after passing stolen checks from a hardware store. A jury convicted him on all counts following a consolidated trial, and the trial court imposed prison sentences without ordering a presentence investigation. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, holding that the pretrial photographic identification procedures were not impermissibly suggestive under the standard from Simmons v. United States, that the defendant had withdrawn his request for a presentence report thereby precluding it, and that the checks were adequately identified by witnesses for admission into evidence. The court rejected claims of error in the identification testimony and evidentiary rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose when a township board, after initially granting permission for defendants to place a mobile home on their lot, faced a neighbor's complaints that it violated local ordinances and reduced his property value. After the board declined to act and was later subject to a default judgment requiring enforcement, it sued the defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief to remove the structure, but the trial court dismissed the complaint. The neighbor, who was not a party to the action, attempted to appeal the dismissal and related orders. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that only parties to the proceeding may appeal from a judgment or order. This limitation stems from the general rule that appeals are restricted to aggrieved parties, with no statute extending review rights to non-parties.

procedure

In State v. Nelson, the defendant, an inmate at the South Dakota penitentiary, was convicted by a jury of second-degree manslaughter in the death of another inmate from strychnine poisoning and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment to run concurrently with his existing life sentence. On appeal, Nelson challenged the admission of the victim's hearsay statements as dying declarations, the sufficiency of the evidence showing he aided in the poisoning, and the introduction of an absent witness's preliminary hearing testimony. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the dying declarations met the statutory requirements of voluntariness, res gestae, and the declarant's belief in imminent death, that the evidence supported aiding and abetting liability, and that the preliminary hearing testimony was properly admitted under established rules allowing such evidence when the witness is unavailable after due diligence. The court also rejected claims that the manslaughter statute was unconstitutionally vague or improperly submitted as a lesser included offense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a 1967 contract requiring Oahe Enterprises to transfer stock to Golden in exchange for personal property; the company sought rescission or reformation, while Golden sought enforcement via cross-claim. After a bench trial, the court ruled for Golden, entering judgment for $16,922.32 in stock value but without specifying the number of shares or their valuation date. Golden moved to amend the findings to award 338.446 shares based on a $50 per share value from the contract date, and later filed a similar motion alternatively seeking a new trial; both were denied by the successor judge. The South Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the denial order was not appealable under SDCL 15-26-1 because it was reviewable on appeal from the underlying judgment and did not qualify as one of the enumerated appealable orders.

procedure

The case involved defendant Van Beek who was charged with two counts of third-degree burglary in Minnehaha County for incidents at different buildings two months apart. The trial court denied his motion to sever the counts and allowed certain evidence including overshoes and tools seized under search warrants and a sheriff's comparison of a footprint photo to the overshoes. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the offenses were of the same class and properly joined without abuse of discretion in denying severance, that the seizures were valid under the plain view exception during lawful searches, and that the footprint testimony was admissible as lay opinion. Because the sentences were concurrent, any error on one count did not affect the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of third-degree burglary for breaking into the Troff Corral in Moody County and stealing personal property, with the conviction based in part on evidence of overshoes and rubbers seized from his farm that matched footprints found at the scene. The defendant appealed, claiming the footwear was illegally seized because it was not listed in the search warrants and should have been excluded from evidence. The court affirmed the conviction, determining that the seizure was reasonable as the items were in plain view during a valid search for other stolen goods and could reasonably be linked to the crime based on the officers' awareness of the footprints and other recovered property. The court also rejected challenges to the timing of admitting a plaster cast of a footprint and the proof of venue.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Van Beek, the defendant was convicted by a jury of grand larceny for stealing livestock and appealed, claiming the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after the prosecutor asked on cross-examination about a recent prior conviction for burglary (misstated as robbery). The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a defendant who testifies may be impeached by evidence of a prior felony conviction, including the name and nature of the crime, even if judgment has not yet been entered on the verdict. The court reasoned that the inquiry was proper to attack credibility and did not exceed allowable limits, that the misstatement between two felonies was immaterial, and that other questions raised on appeal were not properly preserved or prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned competing applications for on-sale liquor licenses in Pierre, South Dakota, subject to a statutory quota, along with disputes over the validity of a bottle club license, license transfers, and compliance with premises and applicant suitability requirements. The trial court held that the Commissioner properly declined to process Asmussen's application due to the quota, that Chamales's license was valid, and that licenses to Kelso and McDaniels were invalid. On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the denial of Asmussen's application, reasoning that the quota had not been exhausted once other licenses were invalidated, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment based on statutory mandates for notice, hearings, and that substantial amendments to applications constitute new filings requiring fresh procedures under SDCL provisions on licensing. The court further required Asmussen to demonstrate ownership or leasehold interest in the proposed premises before issuance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns an appeal from a circuit court's denial of a defendant's motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him in South Dakota on a Kansas judgment for $65,000. The defendant argued excusable neglect due to communications with plaintiff's counsel suggesting the action would be dropped or held in abeyance, and he later filed an answer in a related Michigan action on the same claim. The court reversed the denial, holding that the defendant's actions in the Michigan suit constituted an appearance in the South Dakota action under the applicable rules, entitling him to notice before entry of default judgment. The reasoning emphasized that the two suits were essentially one cause of action and that the notice requirement protects parties who indicate a purpose to defend, even without formal pleadings in the specific case.

procedure

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of forgery in the third degree and forgery in the second degree for forging endorsements on an insurance loss draft payable to multiple parties including a body shop and lienholder. The trial court denied a motion for acquittal on venue grounds and imposed concurrent three-year sentences, which the defendant appealed on multiple grounds including improper venue and sentencing procedure. The court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established venue in Davison County where the draft was received and handled, that venue need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the sentencing hearing complied with statutory discretion without prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Kindvall, the defendant was charged with murder after shooting and killing Emil Zobel with a rifle on July 6, 1969, following an earlier shooting of the victim's brother; he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, and the jury convicted him of murder with a life sentence. On appeal, Kindvall argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation, intent, or his sanity at the time of the offense, and that the state improperly failed to present initial expert testimony on his mental capacity, while also claiming error in the denial of a new trial due to possible undisclosed medication affecting his appearance at trial. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that sanity is rebuttably presumed so the prosecution need not prove it in its case-in-chief, that the expert testimony and other evidence were sufficient for the jury to find the defendant knew right from wrong and acted with premeditation, and that the new trial motion lacked merit because it rested on speculation without a showing of reasonable diligence to discover the evidence earlier. The decision relied on South Dakota's right-and-wrong test for insanity and the standards for granting new trials under state statute.

criminal law

This case involved an indigent defendant who was charged with violating a town ordinance against public intoxication in a police magistrate's court, pled guilty without counsel after his request for appointed counsel was denied, and later sought habeas corpus relief claiming a violation of his constitutional right to counsel. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to appointment of counsel at public expense for this offense. It reasoned that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as extended to the states by Gideon v. Wainwright, applies to felonies but not to petty offenses carrying less than six months imprisonment, and that extending the right to municipal ordinance violations would be impractical given resource constraints in small towns and rural areas with few lawyers. The court affirmed the judgment quashing the writ but remanded for further proceedings on unrelated issues regarding the validity of the sentence imposed.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Watts, the defendant was charged with murder after shooting and killing his stepson in a public parking area but was convicted by a jury of the lesser offense of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced to 18 years in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because the killing was justified as self-defense and that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence regarding prior threats. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the evidence presented conflicting versions of events that the jury was entitled to resolve against the defendant, and while the hearsay statements were improperly admitted, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other evidence of mutual ill will and threats between the parties. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the State Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education's 1969 creation of a new independent school district in southern Union County, South Dakota, which incorporated the Elk Point Independent School District and several others to comply with a 1967 law requiring all areas to join approved districts by 1970. The Elk Point district and local taxpayers petitioned the circuit court to annul the action, claiming the commission lacked authority to dissolve their existing independent district. The circuit court ruled in their favor, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute's provisions for creating new districts or adjusting boundaries did not extend to the commission's chosen action under the relevant subsection. The court noted that later legislative changes clarified the commission's powers but did not retroactively authorize or validate the reorganization at issue. It also confirmed that judicial review was available under the state's Administrative Procedures Act.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a creditor who obtained an attachment lien on a debtor's real property within four months before the debtor filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee sold the property to the defendants, and the creditor sued to enforce the lien against them. The court held that the lien was null and void under federal bankruptcy law and that the purchasers could assert its invalidity. The reasoning was that the statute voids such liens to prevent preferential treatment of creditors, and parties claiming under the trustee have standing to challenge them when the property has been sold from the estate.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved a credit association that had loaned money to a rancher secured by chattel mortgages on cattle, suing the surety of a bonded livestock market agency after the agency sold the mortgaged cattle on commission but failed to remit the proceeds to the association. The trial court entered judgment for the association, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the market was liable for conversion of the mortgaged cattle under settled auctioneer liability rules, that the association had not consented to or waived its liens by authorizing sales, and that the market had actual notice of the mortgages and concealed the transactions. The bond required by state and federal law covered the post-1966 transactions at issue.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, a South Dakota rancher sued an Oklahoma custom combiner for damages after a fire destroyed about 60 acres of standing wheat, alleging the fire started due to the defendant's negligence in driving and parking a grain truck in a stubble field. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages, but the trial court denied the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish negligence. The court reasoned that res ipsa loquitur does not apply to fire cases (except those involving locomotive sparks), the plaintiff failed to prove any specific negligent act such as allowing straw to accumulate on the exhaust, and driving a vehicle through dry wheat stubble does not create a foreseeable risk of fire amounting to a lack of ordinary care.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Lawrence Geelan's appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief following his 1960 burglary conviction in South Dakota, for which he received a 15-year sentence that had been upheld on direct appeal. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that several claims—including illegal search evidence, an illegally drawn jury panel, perjured testimony, failure to appoint an expert witness, and insufficient evidence—had already been resolved against him or his co-defendant in prior proceedings and could not be relitigated. On the claim of evidence suppression, the court found no due process violation because the prosecution had not knowingly withheld material evidence and Geelan had made no pretrial request for the items. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim was rejected because Geelan had been represented by two competent retained attorneys at trial, and he failed to demonstrate any deprivation of a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the validity of a will executed by John Hobelsberger shortly before his death, which left his farm and personal property to his grandniece Phyllis Rami and her immediate family. Nine of his other nieces and nephews challenged the will's admission to probate on grounds of the testator's lack of capacity due to age and illness, undue influence by the Ramis, and improper execution because he signed with a mark. The trial court admitted the will after finding the testator had sufficient mental capacity, no undue influence existed, and the execution complied with statute; the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that physical frailty and a mild stroke did not negate testamentary capacity at the time of execution, the Ramis' limited involvement did not trigger a presumption of undue influence, and a person physically unable to sign could validly use a mark even if previously able to write.

family lawproperty