Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence and having an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing that the magistrate court and circuit court erred by failing to suppress evidence from the traffic stop that led to his convictions because the law enforcement officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of the circumstances led to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore, the lower courts did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment and ordered to reimburse the county for costs of prosecution. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising six issues for review. The circuit court denied the claims after an evidentiary trial. Appellant appealed, raising three issues for review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to prove that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient or that Appellant was prejudiced; (2) the State did not violate the terms of the plea-bargain agreement; and (3) the sentencing court did not err by failing to advise Appellant of his Boykin rights during sentencing. View "Keinsasser v. Weber" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment with twenty years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, Defendant argued that his sentence was cruel and unusual because it was disproportionate to the sentence that his codefendant received for the same offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the harshness of Defendant’s sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense, and although his sentence is more severe than his codefendant’s, his culpability is correspondingly greater; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not violate the Eighth Amendment or abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Rice" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree rape. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) because the record was insufficient to allow for an appropriate review of Defendant’s argument that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she did not understand S.D. Codified Laws 19-19-412; (2) the circuit court did not commit prejudicial error when it concluded that Defendant was not entitled to a hearing under section 19-19-412 because he did not file a motion for a hearing fourteen days before trial; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it limited Defendant’s cross-examination of the victim to questions related to the victim’s sexual encounters with Defendant; and (4) the circuit court did not err when it considered Defendant’s juvenile psychological records to determine an appropriate sentence. View "State v. Golliher-Weyer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide, driving with alcohol in his blood or while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, possession of marijuana, and ingesting a non-alcoholic substance to become intoxicated. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when in denying his motion to suppress a blood draw because law enforcement and hospital personnel took blood samples from him in violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) blood drawn by hospital personnel for medical purposes is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection, and therefore, suppression of the draw was not warranted; and (2) exigent circumstances existed in regard to the warrantless blood draw ordered by law enforcement such that the blood draw was objectively reasonable. View "State v. Fischer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of second-degree burglary and four counts of identity theft. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty but mentally ill to grand theft. Defendant appealed, challenging both his jury convictions and the sentences imposed for each of his crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the performance of defense counsel did not clearly deprive Defendant of his constitutional rights to counsel and a fair trial; (2) Defendant’s sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the charges of second-degree burglary and identity theft. View "State v. Chipps" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of two ounces or less of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine presented to the jury, as (i) Defendant did not preserve his arguments regarding the validity of his arrest and the subsequent search of his person, and (ii) the search of Defendant’s vehicle was constitutional; and (2) the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly possessed methamphetamine. View "State v. Fischer" on Justia Law

In 2014, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction of aggravated theft by deception, holding that the State failed to prove all the elements of the offense. The State subsequently brought new charges against Defendant for forgery and offering false or forged instruments for filing, registering, or recording in a public office. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, asserting that double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and res judicata barred the State’s subsequent prosecution because the State had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the newly-indicted charges during the first trial. Defendant further asserted that the indictment should be dismissed for improper venue. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and a jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of all charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the newly-indicted charges were separate and distinct from the charges dismissed in the first trial, the State was not precluded from retrying Defendant under double jeopardy and res judicata principles; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded that venue was proper on all charges. View "State v. Thomason" on Justia Law

Defendant was searched pursuant to a search warrant with an “all persons” provision. Defendant was found in possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. Defendant was subsequently convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained a result of the search, arguing that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked probable cause for the “all persons” provision. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the affidavit adequately established probable cause for issuance of a warrant with the “all persons” provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers’ good-faith reliance on the warrant, specifically its “all persons” provision, was objectively reasonable, thereby making suppression an inappropriate remedy. View "State v. Running Shield" 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