Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree burglary, aggravated assault, and grand theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not commit plain error by allowing a police officer to testify that Defendant invoked his right to an attorney; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal concerning the aggravated assault charge; and (3) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal concerning his aggravated assault and first-degree burglary charges. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court's preliminary ruling that Appellant could provide testimony from an expert witness on the capacity of a ten-year-old alleged third-party perpetrator to have killed Appellant's daughter, A.H., holding that the circuit court abused its discretion.Appellant was arrested and charged by complaint with second-degree murder in connection with the death of her three-year-old daughter A.H. Appellant's theory at trial was that a ten-year-old boy inflicted the injuries upon A.H. that caused her death. At issue was the circuit court's grant of Appellant's motion to offer third-party perpetrator evidence at trial. The circuit court denied Appellant's request to admit direct evidence of the boy's other acts but allowed admission of the opinion testimony at issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erroneously applied Rule 404(a) and (b) and Rule 703 in allowing the admission of the proffered expert testimony. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

In a previous decision involving a reporter’s request for information concerning an investigation involving Sanford, the South Dakota Supreme Court held that SDCL 23A-35-4.1 permits a circuit court to “seal the contents of an affidavit in support of a search warrant upon a showing of reasonable cause, but only until the investigation is terminated or an indictment or information is filed.” The court may not prohibit the public disclosure of other specific records nor of the fact that a search warrant affidavit has been filed.” Certain personally identifying information within court records must be redacted as a matter of course.Following the completion of the state’s criminal investigation, the circuit court unsealed the search warrant affidavits related to the investigation. Sanford challenged the denial of his request to inspect and participate in redacting the affidavits before the records were unsealed. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The circuit court properly applied the provisions of SDCL 15-15A-13 and 23A-35-4.1 and thoroughly considered the statutory and constitutional grounds asserted by Sanford with respect to information that could conceivably be contained in the affidavits. The court appropriately exercised its discretion to “decide whether there [were] sufficient grounds to prohibit access” to the contents of the affidavits. View "Matter Of Implicated Individual" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated Defendant's conviction of multiple offenses relating to the assault of his ex-wife and his later efforts to get the pending charges dismissed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of engaging in threatening or harassing contact, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 49-31-31(1).After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts, including two counts of aggravated assault and threatening or harassing contact. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by not granting Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal on the charges of aggravated assault in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-1.1(1) and S.D. Codified Laws 22-18-1.1(5); but (2) there was insufficient evidence presented to the jury to support a finding of guilt on the charge of engaging in threatening or harassing contact in violation of S.D. Codified Laws 49-31-31(1). View "State v. Peneaux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's misdemeanor conviction for intentional damage to property following a court trial, holding that the circuit court erred by accepting the argument of the prosecutor that intentional damage to property is a strict liability offense for which a defendant who caused damage is necessarily guilty.Defendant was charged with intentional damage to property as a Class 1 misdemeanor for striking the windshield of a vehicle with her hand held in a fist, cracking it. During trial, Defendant argued that she could not be guilty because she did not intend to crack the windshield. The circuit court found Defendant guilty, aligning its rationale with the State's strict liability theory. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that intentional damage to property, as described S.D. Codified Laws 22-34-1, requires the State to prove that the Defendant acted with the specific intent to cause damage to the subject property. View "State v. Vandyke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree rape and two counts of sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of rape and sexual contact with a minor and sentenced to two consecutive sixty-year terms of imprisonment on the rape convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the two rape charges; (2) the submission of the sexual contact charges to the jury did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy; (3) there was no improper bolstering of witnesses at trial by either the circuit court or the prosecution; (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; (5) Defendant's sentence neither violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, nor did it constitute an abuse of discretion; and (6) no other prejudicial error occurred. View "State v. Manning" on Justia Law