Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with alternative counts of driving under the influence after being stopped for committing a traffic violation and having blood evidence seized from her without a warrant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test administration and results. The magistrate court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the warrantless search conducted under the state’s implied consent statutes was unconstitutional and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the blood draw in this case violated the warrant requirement of the federal constitution and state constitution; and (2) because the evidence was not obtained during a search conducted in “reasonable reliance on binding precedent,” it was not subject to the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Fierro" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving or control of a vehicle while having 0.08 percent or more of alcohol in his blood. The offense was found to be a third offense DUI within a ten-year period, and Defendant was sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress blood evidence seized without a warrant, as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in this case; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to strike a previous DUI conviction from the part II information. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

While Defendant was incarcerated, he killed a corrections officer. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to death for the murder. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded Defendant’s death sentence, concluding that the circuit court may have committed prejudicial error by improperly considering, for sentencing purposes, statements made by Defendant in a psychological evaluation procured to determine his competency to stand trial. The Court remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing without the use or consideration of the psychological evaluation unless Defendant called its authority to testify. On remand, the circuit court entered an amended judgment of conviction sentencing Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s death sentence, holding (1) the Court’s remand directions in Berget I did not infringe upon any of Berget’s constitutional rights; (2) the limited remand did not implicate or otherwise violate Defendant’s rights to be present and to allocution; and (3) Defendant’s judicial bias argument failed. View "State v. Berget" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and ingestion of a substance for the purpose of becoming intoxicated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a plain reading of the statutes under which Defendant was convicted reveals that nothing precludes a conviction of unauthorized possession when the controlled substance is ingested and thereby absorbed into the human body; (2) Defendant did not face double jeopardy by being convicted of both possession of a controlled substance, by way of an altered state of cocaine absorbed into the body, and ingestion of a substance other than alcohol for purposes of becoming intoxicated; (3) there was sufficient evidence to prove venue; and (4) the circuit court did not err in instructing the jury. View "State v. Whistler" on Justia Law

After drinking heavily, Defendant opened the passenger door to his truck to get a cigarette. In doing so, Defendant inadvertently bumped the gear shift, causing it to pop into neutral. The truck then rolled into a parked vehicle. Defendant was subsequently convicted of being in “actual physical control” of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction, holding that Defendant’s actions did not put him in such control as would enable him to actually operate the vehicle in its usually and ordinary manner, nor did Defendant’s actions reflect any exercise of dominion or control over the vehicle. View "State v. Nekolite" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and was later convicted and incarcerated for felony failure to appear arising from the driving under the influence conviction. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that counsel in his driving under the influence conviction failed to fully and correctly advise him regarding the constitutionality of the seizure of blood evidence. In support of his petition, Appellant cited Missouri v. McNeely, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided after Appellant’s arrest. In McNeely the Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigent circumstance justifying nonconsensual blood testing in all driving under the influence arrests. The habeas court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim but issued a certificate of probable cause regarding whether McNeely should be given retroactive effect in South Dakota. The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s ruling, holding that the new rule announced in McNeely was not a rule which warrants retroactive application to cases on habeas review. View "Siers v. Weber" on Justia Law

After highway patrol troopers stopped a vehicle, in which Defendant was a passenger, for a traffic infraction, the trooper smelled marijuana on the driver and in the vehicle. Defendant then admitted to the presence of marijuana in the back of the vehicle. A trooper subsequently handcuffed Defendant, patted down his person, and found cocaine on Defendant’s person. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The circuit court suppressed the cocaine seized from Defendant’s person, concluding that the State failed to establish that the warrantless search of Defendant’s person was justified under any exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s person did not fall within the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement; but (2) the cocaine evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor and twelve counts of possessing, manufacturing, or distributing child pornography. During the trial the trial court closed the courtroom to members of the general public during the victim’s testimony. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly closed Defendant’s trial to the public without making sufficient findings regarding the closure. The Court remanded the case and instructed the court to enter supplemental findings regarding the closure. On remand, the trial court held a supplemental hearing and found that substantial reason existed for closing the courtroom. Defendant appealed, contending that remanding for supplemental findings was an inappropriate remedy. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the remedy ordered by the Court in Rolfe I was appropriate to cure the constitutional violation alleged; and (2) the trial court did not improperly close Defendant’s trial in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. View "State v. Rolfe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault for the death of his son. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the second degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, was sufficient to sustain a reasonable theory of guilt; and (2) did not err by allowing testimony of a witness who had conversed with Defendant in the county jail where the witness used a note to refresh his memory before he met with a law enforcement officer. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the first-degree rape of a nine-year-old girl. Prior to trial, the State moved to partially close the courtroom during the victim’s testimony to everyone but the parties, the media, and the State’s victim-witness assistant. The trial court ordered disclosure, and defense counsel did not object. On appeal, Defendant challenged the courtroom closure, alleging, inter alia, that the closure violated his right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel, rather than a defendant personally, may waive a defendant’s right to a public trial; and (2) the trial court did not commit plain error by closing the courtroom to the general public during the victim’s testimony. View "State v. Bauer" on Justia Law