Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that S.D. Codified Laws 32-34-5, which punishes defendants for their failure to stop and comply with the requirements of S.D. Codified Laws 32-34-3, applies regardless of whether the defendant's acts were intentional and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction under section 32-34-5.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault and felony hit and run. Defendant appealed. Appellate counsel then submitted a Korth briefing setting forth the issues Defendant wished to raise on appeal. The Supreme Court addressed only the brief's arguably meritorious issue, namely, whether the felony hit and run statute applies to intentional conduct. The Court then affirmed, holding that the felony hit and run statute applies regardless of whether the defendant's acts were intentional. View "State v. Kwai" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten counts of sexual contact with a child under age sixteen and one count of first-degree rape, holding that the State's failure to notify Defendant that Debra Hughes, a mental health practitioner who had served as the victim's counselor, would give expert testimony did not prejudice Defendant.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant preserved expert witness issues for appellate review; (2) Hughes' testimony constituted an expert testimony requiring advance notice; (3) the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present expert witness testimony in violation of its pretrial order, but the admission of that testimony did not constitute prejudice; and (4) Hughes' testimony did not constitute improper bolstering of the victim's testimony. View "State v. Pretty Weasel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree robbery and sentencing him to forty years' imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.Defendant entered a casino where seventy-six-year-old Helga Harris was working by herself as a cashier and held Harris at gun point. Defendant pulled Harris behind the counter, struck her on the head with his pistol, and tried to open the cash register. Finally, Defendant took Harris's purse and ran from the casino. After the jury convicted him of first-degree robbery Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. View "State v. Long Soldier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree manslaughter, holding that the circuit court did not err in excluding polygraph evidence in its sentencing consideration.Defendant, who pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter, sought to introduce evidence of a polygraph examination regarding his role in the crime prior to his sentencing hearing. The circuit court denied the request and sentenced Defendant to eighty years' incarceration with twenty years suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered polygraph evidence. View "State v. Banks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting and sentencing Defendant for second-degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on statutory immunity under S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-4.8, a statute that became effective during the pendency of his case. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to a pretrial determination of statutory immunity under section 22-18-4.8 because the statute was substantive and not retroactive; (2) the circuit court's erroneous admission of certain testimony was not prejudicial; (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and therefore, the circuit court properly denied Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court that Defendant's conduct violated the provisions of S.D. Codified Laws 22-3-5, holding that the circuit court did not err.Defendant was convicted as an accessory to aggravated assault for intentionally harboring or concealing a juvenile, N.I., in the commission of a felony. Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing, among other things, that she could not have committed the crime because N.I. was charged as a juvenile under the rules of civil procedure and therefore did not commit the principal felony necessary to sustain the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an individual may be prosecuted, tried, and punished as an accessory to a crime under section 22-3-5 when the principal felony is based on the act of a juvenile, regardless of the status of any prosecution against that juvenile; and (2) therefore, the circuit court properly concluded that Defendant's conduct violated the provisions of section 22-3-5. View "State v. Dutton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on seven counts of violating a no contact order, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motions for mistrial and judgment of acquittal.During the underlying trial, the alleged victim became emotional in front of the jury while testifying. Consequently, the circuit court recessed the jury during her testimony and ordered the victim not to communicate with anyone during the recess. The victim, however, violated the order by speaking to her mother. Defendant filed a motion for a mistrial. The trial court denied the motion, determining that Defendant had not spoken to her mother about the case. When the victim returned to the stand she was unable to continue and the court recessed the trial for the day. Defendant again moved for a mistrial and for a judgment of acquittal, without success. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's mistrial and acquittal motions. View "State v. Shibly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-42-4.3, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, his second such offense, and the circuit court imposed the twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence established for a second or subsequent offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in determining that it was unable to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in determining that S.D. Codified Laws 22-42-2.5 did not permit the court to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence because Defendant had failed to provide any information to the State. View "State v. Hirning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of hunting on private land without permission from the owner, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 41-9-1, holding that, contrary to Defendant's assertion on appeal, the Legislature intended section 41-9-1 to be a strict liability offense.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration; (2) Defendant's argument that a mens rea should be read into section 41-9-1 was unavailing; and (3) Defendant's contention that the circuit court initiated an ex parte communication was not supported by the record, and Defendant received a fair and impartial trial. View "State v. Fideler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court suppressing statements made by Defendant during the execution of a search warrant, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Defendant's statements to a law enforcement officer during the execution of a search warrant were involuntarily made.Defendant was indicted for one count each of rape in the third degree and sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement, arguing that his statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996). The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that Defendant's statements were involuntarily made under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on a review of the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court erred in concluding that Defendant's statements to law enforcement were involuntarily made. View "State v. Ghebre" on Justia Law