Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss the second petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by David Lee in 2004, holding that Lee's claim for habeas relief must be denied.Lee brought his second habeas corpus petition in 2004, alleging that his habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a certificate of probable cause in his first habeas corpus proceeding. It wasn't until 2019, however, that Lee served the State with the provisional writ. The State moved to dismiss the writ, arguing that after the expiration of the statutory 30-day period for filing a motion for a certificate of probable cause under S.D. Codified Laws 21-27-18.1, the court did not have the authority to issue a certificate of probable cause. The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Lee had no right to appeal absent a certificate of probable cause issued by the habeas court or a member of the Supreme Court, and Lee had no right to a certificate of probable cause; and (2) even if Lee's habeas counsel was ineffective, it did not deprive Lee of any constitutional or statutory right that may be vindicated in a habeas corpus proceeding. View "Lee v. Weber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder and sentencing him to forty years in prison, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as concerning the prosecutor's effort to conceal the State's involvement in Defendant's transfer proceedings, the circuit court properly exercised its discretion to neutralize any error; (2) the circuit court acted within its discretion to denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; (3) viewed in their entirety, the instructions given to the jury correctly stated the applicable law; (4) the exercise of the circuit court's discretion did not contravene Defendant's right to present a complete defense; and (5) Defendant's sentence could not be described as grossly disproportionate to his crime. View "State v. Black Cloud" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault and sentencing him to life imprisonment, holding that Defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment.Defendant pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter and aggravated assault. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to life without the possibility of parole for first-degree manslaughter and to a term of fifteen years for aggravated assault to run concurrently with his life sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that his life sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and that the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. View "State v. Caffee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of rape in the first degree and his sentence of two consecutive twenty-five-year prison terms, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial or in instructing the jury.During trial, defense counsel cross-examined the victim at issue in order to demonstrate what counsel believed were inconsistencies between the victim's testimony and a prior incident. Based on the belief that counsel's questions had prompted the victim about uncharged events involving Defendant, the prosecutor asked the victim about this other conduct. Defendant later moved for a mistrial on the grounds that he had not received notice of the State's intent to introduce other acts evidence,The circuit court denied the motion and convicted Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for mistrial or in failing to include Defendant's proposed instruction regarding other acts of rape. View "State v. Ortiz-Martinez" on Justia Law

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