Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Christopher Schocker was convicted of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer. The incident occurred when Officer Blake Swanson, a Game, Fish, and Parks conservation officer, received a tip about a poached deer and went to investigate. At the scene, Schocker, his mother Doris, and two other individuals were present. During the encounter, Schocker picked up a knife and moved towards Officer Swanson, who then arrested him. Schocker claimed he intended to cut a tag off the deer, not assault the officer.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Roberts County, South Dakota, found Schocker guilty. Schocker appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. His attorney, Robert Doody, did not interview key witnesses or adequately prepare for trial. The court-appointed new counsel for Schocker, who then filed for habeas corpus relief. The habeas court found that Doody’s performance was deficient and prejudicial, as he failed to interview witnesses who could have supported Schocker’s defense.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the habeas court’s decision, agreeing that Doody’s failure to interview witnesses, particularly Jeffry Hopkins, who could testify that Schocker intended to cut the tag off the deer, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. This failure was deemed prejudicial because it deprived Schocker of a fair trial. The court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if the jury had heard Hopkins’s testimony. View "Schocker v. Fluke" on Justia Law

A Sturgis police officer stopped a vehicle for a headlamp violation. The driver, who lacked identification, was found with methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia and was arrested. Wanda Edwards, the passenger, refused to hand over her purse during a vehicle search. Law enforcement forcibly took and searched the purse, finding methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Edwards was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. She moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse, but the motion was denied, and she was convicted.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Meade County, South Dakota, denied Edwards' motion to suppress, ruling that the search of the vehicle and its contents, including Edwards' purse, was lawful as it was incident to the driver's arrest. The court concluded that the purse was a container within the vehicle at the time of the arrest, and Edwards' attempt to remove it did not change its status.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. Edwards argued that the search of her purse violated her Fourth Amendment rights, citing that probable cause to search a vehicle does not extend to a passenger's person. The State argued that the search was justified under the automobile exception and as a search incident to arrest. The court held that the search of Edwards' purse was lawful under the automobile exception, as probable cause to search the vehicle extended to all containers within it, including personal belongings of passengers. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding Edwards' convictions. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Joshua Jay Rose was charged with simple assault of his son, C.R., and faced trial in magistrate court. The first jury trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked. During the second trial, the State moved for a mistrial due to defense counsel's references to the previous trial, mention of a no-contact order, and questions about how the trial's outcome could affect where C.R. lived. The magistrate court granted the mistrial, citing the cumulative effect of these issues. Rose's motion to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy was denied, and he was convicted in a third trial.Rose appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the magistrate court abused its discretion by granting the second mistrial and that double jeopardy should have precluded his retrial. The circuit court affirmed the magistrate court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in granting the mistrial, considering the cumulative effect of the references to the previous trial, the no-contact order, and the questions about the trial's impact on C.R.'s living situation. The court found that these issues could have affected the jury's impartiality, justifying the mistrial and subsequent retrial. View "State v. Rose" on Justia Law

R.M., a minor, reported that Troy O’Brien, her mother’s boyfriend, had inappropriately touched her breasts and genital area on multiple occasions. O’Brien was charged with multiple counts of rape, sexual contact with a child under sixteen, and sexual exploitation of a minor. A jury found him guilty on all charges. O’Brien appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of sexual penetration and that the rape charges were duplicitous, claiming the court erred by not instructing the jury to unanimously agree on each act of rape.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, heard the case. During the trial, R.M. testified about multiple instances of inappropriate touching by O’Brien, describing the touching in detail and indicating that it occurred in various rooms of their homes. Despite her difficulty in recalling specific details, R.M. consistently described the nature of the touching. The jury found O’Brien guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to fifty years for second-degree rape, with additional concurrent sentences for other charges.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that sexual penetration occurred, based on R.M.’s testimony and drawings. The court also addressed the issue of the unanimity instruction, noting that although the charges were duplicitous, O’Brien failed to show that the lack of a specific unanimity instruction affected his substantial rights or the trial's fairness. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, upholding O’Brien’s convictions and sentences. View "State v. O’Brien" on Justia Law

Cody Heer was convicted of multiple drug-related offenses after selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in a Walmart parking lot in Sioux Falls, with his child present. Heer was indicted on charges of distributing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and causing a child to be present where methamphetamine is distributed. The State also filed a habitual offender information due to Heer’s prior felony convictions.Initially represented by court-appointed counsel, Heer moved to represent himself after his request for substitute counsel was denied. The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County granted his motion for self-representation but appointed his former attorney as standby counsel. Heer did not object to this arrangement or to the presence of standby counsel at trial. Heer conducted his defense, including making motions, cross-examining witnesses, and delivering closing arguments. The jury found Heer guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the distribution conviction, with additional suspended sentences for the other charges.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed Heer’s appeal, where he argued that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated by the appointment and presence of standby counsel. Heer also claimed that the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments constituted improper vouching, amounting to plain error. The court held that the appointment of standby counsel was permissible and did not violate Heer’s rights, as standby counsel did not interfere with his control over the case. The court also found no merit in Heer’s claims of improper vouching, concluding that the prosecutor’s statements were fair characterizations of the evidence and did not affect the trial’s outcome. The court affirmed Heer’s convictions and sentences. View "State V. Heer" on Justia Law

Dakota Bail Bonds (DBB) posted bonds for two criminal defendants who violated their conditions of release but did not fail to appear in court. The circuit court forfeited the bonds, interpreting SDCL 23A-43-21 as requiring forfeiture for any material breach of release conditions. DBB requested the forfeiture be set aside under SDCL 23A-43-22, arguing their surety only guaranteed court appearances, not compliance with all conditions of release. The circuit court denied this request and entered orders forfeiting the bonds.The circuit court, part of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, determined that the statutory language did not distinguish between types of bonds and required forfeiture for any breach of release conditions. The court also declined to set aside the forfeiture, reasoning that justice did not warrant such action merely because the defendants complied with court appearance requirements but violated other conditions. Consequently, the court entered judgments of default against DBB.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the surety bond's language. The Supreme Court found that DBB's surety bond explicitly guaranteed only the defendants' court appearances, not compliance with all conditions of release. Since the defendants did not fail to appear in court, there was no violation of the condition guaranteed by DBB. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court should have set aside the forfeiture under SDCL 23A-43-22 and vacated the judgment of default against DBB. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the judgment of default. View "State v. Dakota Bail Bonds" on Justia Law

Beau Foote Sr. was convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest. In September 2017, law enforcement officers attempted to arrest Foote at a trailer home in Fort Pierre due to an outstanding warrant. During the arrest, Foote struggled with the officers, causing a taser to discharge and incapacitate one officer. Foote also attempted to use the taser on another officer, who was protected by a bullet-proof vest. Foote was combative even after being handcuffed.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Stanley County, South Dakota, held a jury trial where Foote was found guilty on all charges. Foote appealed his convictions, arguing that a taser is not a dangerous weapon and that he did not intend to cause harm. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions, citing that a taser is considered a dangerous weapon under state law.Foote then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court held an evidentiary hearing and denied his petition, but issued a certificate of probable cause for appeal. Foote appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that his trial counsel failed to object to the State’s expert disclosures, challenge the experts’ qualifications, and hire a defense expert.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Foote’s counsel made strategic decisions that did not constitute ineffective assistance. The court noted that the counsel’s decisions were based on reasonable trial strategy and that Foote failed to demonstrate how these decisions prejudiced the outcome of his trial. The court affirmed the habeas court’s denial of relief. View "Foote v. Young" on Justia Law

Michael O’Neal was charged with fifteen counts of possession of child pornography following an investigation that included the warrantless seizure of his cell phone and a subsequent search of the phone pursuant to a warrant. O’Neal moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his phone, arguing that the seizure was unconstitutional. The circuit court agreed that the seizure was unconstitutional but denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. The court also denied O’Neal’s motion to dismiss the charges due to preindictment delay and his motion to preclude the introduction of certain images. O’Neal was convicted on all counts after a jury trial and appealed the rulings.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, initially reviewed the case. The court held a suppression hearing and determined that the seizure of O’Neal’s phone was unconstitutional but found that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court concluded that the evidence obtained from the search was sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful seizure. The court also denied O’Neal’s motion to dismiss the charges due to preindictment delay, finding no substantial prejudice, and allowed the introduction of additional images as evidence.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s rulings. The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on the detailed and credible information provided by O’Neal’s fiancé. The court also found that the evidence obtained from the phone was admissible under the independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, despite the initial unlawful seizure. The court determined that O’Neal failed to show actual and substantial prejudice from the preindictment delay and that the additional images were properly admitted as they were relevant to proving O’Neal’s knowledge and intent. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict and that O’Neal’s right to jury unanimity was not violated. View "State v. O'Neal" on Justia Law

Kaleb Ironheart was charged with first-degree robbery and aggravated assault after stealing a bottle of liquor from a grocery store. The store manager, Francis Gergen, noticed Ironheart acting suspiciously, saw him grab a bottle of whiskey, and then watched as Ironheart ran out of the store without paying. Gergen chased Ironheart, who then pulled out a knife and threatened Gergen before escaping in a car. Ironheart was later identified and charged.Ironheart was tried in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota. He moved for a judgment of acquittal on both counts, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support either charge. The circuit court denied the motion, and the jury found Ironheart guilty on both counts. Ironheart appealed the robbery conviction, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that under South Dakota law, robbery is defined as the intentional taking of personal property from another person's possession or immediate presence, against their will, accomplished by means of force or fear of force. The court found that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Ironheart used his knife with force or fear of force to retain possession of the liquor or to prevent Gergen’s resistance to the taking. The court also found that the jury could have concluded that the force or fear of force was not used solely as a means of escape. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding Ironheart's robbery conviction. View "State v. Ironheart" on Justia Law

Harry David Evans, serving a life sentence for six criminal offenses including kidnapping, rape, burglary, assault, stalking, and violating a protection order, filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his rights to due process and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The habeas court dismissed three of Evans' claims on the basis of res judicata as they were resolved in Evans' direct appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the remaining claims and dismissed Evans' request for habeas relief.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in South Dakota had previously convicted Evans and his appeal was denied. Evans then filed a habeas corpus petition alleging nine claims, most of which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court granted the State’s motion to dismiss three of Evans’ claims on the basis of res judicata because they were effectively resolved in Evans’ direct appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the remaining claims and dismissed Evans’ request for habeas relief.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Evans' claims were resolved in his direct appeal and are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore, Evans failed to establish that his counsel was ineffective for not calling a particular witness, not seeking to introduce cell phone records, and for not calling him to testify in his own defense. View "Evans v. Sullivan" on Justia Law