Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second-degree arson stemming from a fire that occurred in Defendant's home, for which she submitted a claim to her insurer seeking to recover for the damage to her home, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal and that she was denied her fundamental right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court's factual findings were legally sufficient to support a conviction of second-degree arson; (2) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (3) Defendant was not denied her constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. View "State v. Krouse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that an offer from Dakota Legends Properties, LLP (DLP) was a bona fide offer that triggered Plaintiffs' right of first refusal to purchase the property, that Plaintiffs had been offered the right of first refusal, and that Plaintiffs did not exercise that right, holding that there was no error.Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiffs that gave Plaintiffs a right of first refusal to purchase the leased property at the same price and terms of any bona fide offer. After receiving an offer from DLP, Defendant notified Plaintiffs of the offer. Plaintiffs made two offers on the property, which Defendant rejected in favor of DLP's offer. Litigation followed, and the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment about whether DLP's offer was "bona fide." The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that DLP's offer was a bona fide offer and that Plaintiff had not exercised her right of first refusal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's conclusions of law were without error. View "McCoy v. McCallum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Meemic Insurance Company's motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that the minimum contacts necessary to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in accordance with due process requirements were not satisfied.Catherine Davis was riding as a passenger on William Laeder's motorcycle when Richard Otten, who was also driving a motorcycle, collided with them. All three people sustained incapacitating injuries. Meemic had issued an insurance policy in Michigan to Davis, which was in effect at the time of the accident. Davis ultimately filed a complaint against Otten and Meemic alleging that Meemic breached its insurance contract with Davis by failing to compensate her under the underinsured motorist coverage and no-fault insurance terms of her policy. After the circuit court denied Meemic's motion to dismiss, Meemic filed a petition for intermediate appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed, holding that the minimum contacts required to warrant a finding of jurisdiction were not met in this case. View "Davis v. Otten" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of violating S.D. Codified Laws 40-1-23 for having a "potentially dangerous animal," holding that the circuit court erred in failing to make the required finding of whether the animal was dangerous.In City of Pierre v. Blackwell, 635 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001), the Supreme Court held that Blackwell was not afforded due process when he was convicted based on the animal control officer's determination of dangerousness. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction in this case, holding (1) Blackwell mandates that due process requires a higher standard than that stated in section 40-1-1(5) to prove the dangerousness of an animal in a criminal proceeding; and (2) because the circuit court clarified that it would have acquitted Defendant but for the 40-1-1(5) language, Defendant's conviction must be reversed. View "State v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying Appellant's amended application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the indictment under which he was charged did not describe a public offense and that he was convicted and sentenced in violation of constitutional provisions prohibiting an ex post facto application of a criminal statute, holding that there was no error.Appellant pled nolo contendere to first-degree rape of a child under thirteen years of age and sexual contact without consent against his daughter. The habeas court denied the habeas application, concluding that Appellant's claim was non-jurisdictional and thus waived when he pled nolo contendere pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to assert a claim upon which his judgment could be void. View "Lacroix v. Fluke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding Defendant guilty of aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial.Defendant's conviction stemmed from a physical altercation with his girlfriend, K.C., an incident during which K.C. alleged that Defendant choked her. The jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated assault. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial based on a letter that K.C. sent to the court prior to sentencing stating that the prosecution manipulated and threatened her to testify. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. View "State v. Timmons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for seven counts, including aggravated assault by physical menace with a dangerous weapon and grand theft by receiving stolen property, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.Defendant's convictions arose from two separate incidents involving an alleged shooting and an ensuing confrontation between Defendant and two other men. On appeal, Defendant challenged the circuit court's denial of his motion for acquittal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. View "State v. Ahmed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to attempted first-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment, nor was it an abuse of the circuit court's sentencing discretion.Defendant and the State entered into a plea agreement under which Defendant agreed to plead guilty to attempted first-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. After a sentencing hearing, the circuit court sentenced Defendant to a total of thirty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that his sentence transgressed the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. View "State v. Deleon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of burglary and two counts of simple assault arising from a home invasion, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary and simple assault. Defendant was tried on a part two habitual offender information alleging two prior felon convictions. The jury found Defendant to be a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the show-up identification; (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal in the habitual offender trial. View "State v. Red Cloud" on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals the Supreme Court held that the State has discretion to charge juveniles under the provisions of either S.D. Codified laws 32-23-1 or S.D. Codified Laws 32.23-21.Defendants, all minors under the age of eighteen, were charged as adults in separate cases for driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than .08, in violation of section 32-23-1(1). Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that their status as juveniles stripped the magistrate courts presiding over their cases of jurisdiction. The magistrate courts dismissed the motions, and the circuit courts affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants failed to support their argument that the language of the relevant statutes prevents the State from charging them in magistrate court with violations of section 32-23-1. View "State v. Bettelyoun" on Justia Law