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

This case involved unmarried parents Christi Mack and Joseph Trautner disputing child support after a 2006 custody change. Joe received temporary custody in April 2006 and permanent custody in July 2006, ending his prior support payments to Christi; in 2007 he sought back child support from her for May 2006 through July 2007. The circuit court granted $6,150 in arrearages, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding the claim barred by res judicata because Joe had raised the issue before a referee who declined to consider past support, the resulting unreversed circuit court order set support prospectively only, and Joe failed to appeal that order. The court reasoned that allowing relitigation would undermine finality in child support proceedings even though the underlying custody dispute involved delays from Christi's noncompliance.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Gilmore, defendant Douglas Gilmore appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained via a search warrant for his residence, contending that the warrant lacked sufficient probable cause. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. The affidavit supporting the warrant relied on a tip from a cooperating individual who had purchased methamphetamine at the home, which police corroborated through utility records, surveillance showing a known drug associate visiting, and other details linking Gilmore to the address. The court held that the informant's firsthand knowledge combined with police corroboration met the totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause under established precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Promising Future, Inc. (PFI), its president Roger Hunt, and an unnamed third-party shareholder formed a ballot question committee under South Dakota law by channeling $750,000 from the shareholder through PFI to the VoteYesforLife ballot committee supporting a 2006 referendum. The Secretary of State sued for a declaratory judgment requiring disclosure of the shareholder's identity under SDCL 12-25-19.1 and 12-25-13.1; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that no ballot question committee had been formed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that a triable issue existed on whether the defendants cooperated in raising, collecting, or disbursing funds for a ballot question and that the corporate structure was conceded to have been created to avoid disclosure.

elections

In State v. A.B., a 17-year-old defendant was charged as an adult with first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and simple assault after participating in the armed robbery of a convenience store that resulted in injury to a clerk; his motion to transfer the case to juvenile court was denied, he pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for dismissal of other charges, and he received a 10-year prison sentence with 6 years suspended. On appeal, A.B. challenged the denial of the transfer, the refusal to impose a suspended sentence, and the addition of victim restitution to the written judgment after the oral sentencing. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the transfer denial and sentencing decision based on the evidence of A.B.'s age, gang involvement, criminal history, and the nature of the offense, but vacated the amended judgment because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence once the notice of appeal had been filed. The court noted that the victim retained civil remedies for the additional medical expenses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kasey L. Onken, who was charged with five counts of criminal pedophilia and, alternatively, five counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen based on allegations by his young daughter regarding incidents during visitation periods. A jury convicted him on one count of sexual contact with a child under sixteen. On appeal, Onken challenged the trial court's denial of his mid-trial request for a continuance to locate and interview V.B., a potential witness mentioned in the victim's forensic interview whom the defense initially doubted existed, arguing this prevented him from developing exculpatory evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because Onken had received the interview videotape before trial and had ample opportunity to investigate V.B. earlier.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Reaves, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree rape under a binding plea agreement that capped his sentence at 15 years in exchange for dropping kidnapping charges; the circuit court had assured him he could withdraw the plea if it rejected the agreement. The court imposed a sentence of 20 years with 10 suspended, believing it complied with the cap, and denied Reaves the chance to withdraw his plea after sentencing. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the full 20-year term (even with suspension) exceeded the 15-year limit because any violation could result in serving the full time. The court concluded the trial judge had misunderstood the sentence's effect relative to the agreement and thus erred in proceeding without allowing withdrawal or adhering to the terms.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the children of Joseph E. Olson from a prior marriage sued his surviving spouse Nora Olson and the bank holding ten certificates of deposit that Joe had purchased, seeking a declaration that the children were entitled to the CDs' proceeds rather than Nora. The CDs had been changed multiple times to reflect joint ownership with Nora or payable-on-death designations to the children. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling that Nora held the CDs as a joint tenant with rights of survivorship based on the ownership documents and Joe's expressed intent. The court also held that the children could not recover money damages from the bank because their complaint sought only declaratory relief, contained no negligence or other claim against the bank, and they declined an opportunity to amend the pleadings to add such claims or a damages request. South Dakota law requires damages to be pled with reasonable certainty in actions like this, precluding the children from raising the issue on appeal.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Ryan, the defendant was charged with three drug-related offenses after a traffic stop and consent search uncovered hydrocodone tablets, Ritalin, and a pen tube with pill residue. A jury convicted him of unauthorized possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia but acquitted him on an ingestion charge; he appealed, alleging a Batson violation during jury selection and insufficient evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding the state's peremptory challenges were based on nonracial reasons and that the evidence, including the strength mismatch with the defendant's prescription and pharmacist identification of the pills, was sufficient to support the verdicts.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a priority dispute between First American Bank & Trust and Farmers State Bank of Canton over secured interests in the assets of Midwest Communications following an asset sale and lease, where First American had taken a collateral assignment of a UCC-1 financing statement originally perfected by Midwest Copier Solutions but filed an incomplete UCC-3 form; Midwest Copier and related entities intervened asserting claims including negligence against both banks for misrepresentations about priority status that allegedly caused the debtor's business failure and loss of value in Copier's security interest. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the banks, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the filings and communications did not establish liability on the negligence or other claims brought by the intervenors.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Audrey Smid challenged the validity of a waiver of her statutory surviving spouse rights contained in trust documents executed days before her husband Ronald's death, arguing she lacked independent legal advice and full disclosure of her rights. The documents transferred the marital home to a revocable trust, granting Audrey a lifetime interest (subject to conditions like remarriage) with the remainder to Ronald's children from a prior marriage, while allocating other assets such as an IRA and savings bonds to her. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling that the waiver was enforceable. The court reasoned that Audrey understood the agreement's practical effect of fulfilling her husband's wishes to pass the home to his children, was present during discussions of the assets and trust terms, and voluntarily signed despite not receiving specific advice on her statutory rights.

family lawproperty

The case involved a dispute over a sheriff's sale of foreclosed real property in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, where DJBAS Living Trust placed the winning bid of $10,000 after the authorized representative of the mortgage holder, South Dakota Housing Development Authority, arrived three minutes late. SD Housing moved to vacate the sale and certificate on grounds of excusable neglect due to the representative's recent knee surgery, courthouse construction, and traffic delay, and the circuit court granted the motion based on the grossly inadequate sale price relative to the nearly $100,000 judgment. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that circuit courts possess broad equitable authority to set aside foreclosure sales when inadequacy of price is accompanied by mistake, misapprehension, or inadvertence that prevents a fair bid, and that the Trust would suffer no prejudice beyond losing an expected windfall. The court noted the representative's consistent prior record of timely attendance at similar sales supported a finding of excusable neglect rather than ordinary negligence.

propertyprocedure

Shirley Johnson petitioned to remove her ex-husband Andrew Fischer as co-guardian and co-conservator of their 23-year-old developmentally disabled son Dennis, who had been placed in a residential program at an Adjustment Training Center. The circuit court granted the petition and terminated Andrew's appointments under SDCL 29A-5-504(12), finding that his actions, including repeated conflicts with staff and interference with Dennis's care and employment, were not in Dennis's best interests even if well-intentioned. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the conclusion that Andrew's behavior had caused Dennis's removal from the residential program and that appointing Shirley as sole guardian would best enable Dennis to return to beneficial services while maintaining relationships with both parents. The court reviewed the guardianship proceedings for abuse of discretion and found none.

family law

In 1995, the State obtained a default judgment against Jeffrey Brandt for child support arrearages after he failed to respond to a summons and complaint served in Arizona; Brandt had earlier requested DNA testing in a prior related proceeding but did not appear in the second action. In 2007, Brandt moved under SDCL 15-6-60(b) to set aside the judgment, claiming lack of notice of the default application and seeking to challenge paternity. The circuit court denied the motion, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the second summons commenced a new action in which Brandt made no appearance, that his request for relief was not made within a reasonable time, and that laches and judicial estoppel barred relitigation of paternity. The court reasoned that Brandt had referenced the judgment in correspondence and participated in later enforcement proceedings without raising these issues.

family lawprocedure

In Ashby v. Oolman, neighboring property owners in Lead, South Dakota disputed ownership of a twenty-five foot strip of land between their homes on Searle Street; Ashby sued Oolman for trespass and wrongful occupation after Oolman began construction, seeking a judicial determination of the boundary line. Following a bench trial, the circuit court ruled for Oolman, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that Ashby's deed, tracing back to a 1978 conveyance from Homestake Mining Company, described only the north portion of Lot 4 and did not include the disputed strip. The court further concluded that Ashby failed to establish adverse possession because the land was not substantially enclosed, was not usually cultivated or improved, and was not occupied in an actual, open, visible, notorious, continuous, and hostile manner for the statutory period.

property