Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to a state officer on the grounds that the officer lacked authority to investigate crimes in Indian country, holding that the officer did not violate any jurisdictional principles by entering Indian country to investigate crimes that occurred outside Indian country.When Defendant spoke with agents from the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs at his home located on Indian trust land concerning property crimes that had occurred outside Indian country he produced evidence implicating him a burglary in Bennett County. Defendant was charged in state court. The circuit court suppressed Defendant's statements, concluding that the agents did not have authority to investigate state criminal offenses in Indian country. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show that the agents lacked authority to investigate state offenses while in Indian country or that the agents' actions infringed upon tribal sovereignty; and (2) Defendant failed to show a Fourth Amendment violation. View "State v. Cummings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court entering judgment in favor of Rapid City Medical Center (RCMC) and three of its doctors (collectively, Defendants) in this negligence action, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's request to call two rebuttal witnesses and refusing Plaintiff's proposed jury instruction on agency.In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants did not inform her of a growing mass in her chest that caused persistent issues with her throat and chest until the mass was removed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiff's request to call two rebuttal witnesses in an attempt to lay foundation for medical records not offered during Plaintiff's case-in-chief; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the agency instruction relative to the claims Plaintiff raised against Defendants. View "Frye-Byington v. Rapid City Medical Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to remove a potential juror for cause.A jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of jury misconduct and irregularity, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the removal of a juror for cause. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed after reviewing the entire void dire proceeding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to remove the juror at issue for cause. View "State v. Leader Charge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of three counts of grand theft by misappropriation of funds by a contractor, holding that the circuit court erred by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.Each count on which Defendant was convicted concerned a different construction project. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the convictions, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence on one or more essential elements, and therefore, the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on each conviction. View "State v. Suchor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, and commission of a felony with a firearm, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State's motion in limine regarding erotic asphyxiation; (2) Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct claims were unfounded; (3) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts on which Defendant was convicted; and (4) Defendant's seventy-five-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Seidel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault for attacking his former significant other, Rosa Sosa, holding that the circuit court did not err in excluding evidence of Sosa's drug use and that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his double jeopardy claims.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in granting the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim's methamphetamine use; and (2) Defendant's convictions for multiple counts of assault did not subject him to double jeopardy. View "State v. Babcock" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and other offenses, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) if the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement, the error was harmless because the statements were cumulative to other evidence received; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or commit prejudicial error by refusing to declare certain witnesses adverse; (3) Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated; and (4) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's guilty verdict on all counts. View "State v. Quinones Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of vehicular homicide, one count of vehicular battery, and driving while under the influence of alcohol, holding that the circuit court did not commit error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress a warrantless blood draw and asked the Supreme Court to review his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress his warrantless blood draw; and (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. View "State v. Vortherms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of simple assault on a law enforcement officer, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of her assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal; (2) the circuit court did not err by instructing the jury on facts not entered into the record; and (3) the circuit court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment by admitting a certified conviction from Codington County in the habitual offender trial. View "State v. McReynolds" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of eight counts of first-degree child rape and four counts of sexual contact with a child, holding that no prejudicial error occurred in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars and his motion to quash the indictment; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting internet searches and images on Defendant's cell phones and tablet; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness's hearsay statements; (4) the circuit court did not err in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal on any of the charges; and (5) Defendant's sentences were not cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Snodgrass" on Justia Law