Richard W. Sabers

The case involved Ted Klaudt, a former South Dakota legislator and foster parent, who was convicted on four counts of second-degree rape for performing sexual acts, including vaginal penetration, on his 17- to 18-year-old foster daughter A.M. under the guise of an egg donation scheme involving medical exams and measurements. Klaudt appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by rejecting certain jury instructions on consent and coercion and that evidence was insufficient to support three of the convictions. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the verdicts, ruling that the evidence established psychological coercion through factors like A.M.'s vulnerability, Klaudt's positions of authority, manipulation, and monetary incentives, which rendered her consent ineffective, and that the jury instructions were proper.

criminal law

In State v. Jackson, Kent Jackson was charged with grand theft by deception after receiving a $12,250 down payment from Gary Epperson for installing a roof on Epperson's business but failing to complete the work. Jackson was convicted by a jury in circuit court following denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and vacated the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson possessed the specific intent to deceive Epperson at the time the contract was formed, as the down payment was placed in the business account and the failure to perform alone did not constitute theft by deception under the surrounding circumstances.

criminal law

This case involved a divorced couple disputing the ex-wife's request to take their two minor children on a three-week trip to the Philippines to visit relatives, as well as the ex-husband's requests to modify the existing visitation schedule established in their divorce stipulation. The South Dakota Supreme Court determined that the challenge to the specific 2008 trip and part of the visitation modification request were moot because the trip had already occurred or the timing made review ineffective. The court therefore declined to address the merits of those issues but affirmed the circuit court's decision on the remaining aspects of the visitation modification request. The reasoning centered on principles of mootness, noting that the dispute was not capable of repetition in a form allowing meaningful review and that the lower court's order on biannual travel did not alter the outcome for the resolved portions.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned Goos RV Center and adjacent property owners' challenge to the Minnehaha County Commission's grant of a conditional use permit allowing gravel extraction on nearby agricultural land zoned A-1. The planning commission approved the permit for Benson Farms (in agreement with Myrl & Roy’s Paving) with 21 conditions covering road maintenance, dust control, noise limits, hours of operation, berms, reclamation, and surety bonds, after reviewing hydrology studies and site plans; the county commission modified two conditions and upheld the approval. Goos appealed to the circuit court, arguing the operation would harm their business through dust, noise, and traffic, but the circuit court affirmed after site review. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the appeal procedure through the county commission was proper under the zoning ordinances and finding no error in the permit decision.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Martha Anders' prior felony DUI conviction could be used under South Dakota's habitual offender statute (SDCL 22-7-7) to enhance her sentence for principal felony charges of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. The circuit court granted Anders' motion to strike the Part II habitual offender information, reasoning that a felony DUI was not a true felony for enhancement purposes and citing Carroll v. Solem. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the prior felony DUI qualifies as a predicate felony for enhancing unrelated principal felonies under the statute, as clarified in State v. Fender, because the current charges carry no separate enhancement scheme that would result in double enhancement.

criminal law

The case involved Cornell McBride's habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a 15-year sentence. McBride claimed his attorney failed to adequately consult with him about his right to a direct appeal from the sentence, despite his expressed concerns about the length of imprisonment, and he asserted he would have appealed if properly advised. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the denial of habeas relief and remanded the matter, holding that under the standard from Roe v. Flores-Ortega, counsel had a constitutional duty to consult about appeal rights given the circumstances, including nonfrivolous issues related to the sentence and the absence of any specific waiver or instruction from the client. The court further outlined a procedure for granting a delayed or out-of-time appeal to remedy the violation, such as vacating and reimposing the sentence to restart the appeal clock.

criminal lawprocedure