Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 1994, Plaintiff granted a drainage easement to Pennington County on land he owned. In 1996, silt began to accumulate near the bottom of the canyon on part of Plaintiff's land due to the County's repair of a section of road abutting Plaintiff's land. In 2010, Plaintiff filed suit against the County for nuisance, constructive taking, trespass, and unlawful taking. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County, determining that there was no continuing tort and that the statute of limitations had run. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the County, as the County's actions did not constitute a continuing tort, and thus, Plaintiff's action was untimely filed. View "Brandt v. County of Pennington" on Justia Law

The City of Rapid City applied a deicer to the streets adjacent to property owned by the Ruperts. The Ruperts sued the City, claiming that the deicer ran onto their property and destroyed several pine trees. The trial court granted the Ruperts' motion for summary judgment on their inverse condemnation claim, and a jury awarded the Ruperts $126,530 to compensate them for the damage to their property. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Ruperts on their inverse condemnation claim, but the measure of damages used at trial for purposes of calculating the just compensation award was erroneous; (2) the trial court properly denied the Ruperts' request for attorney fees; and (3) the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on the Ruperts' claims of negligence and trespass did not constitute reversible error. Remanded for a new trial on damages. View "Rupert v. City of Rapid City" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor and twelve counts of possessing, manufacturing, or distributing child pornography. Defendant was indicted of the charges after the deputy state's attorney issued subpoenas to Midcontinent Communications requesting the personal information of the subscriber associated with the IP address where officers found child pornography. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the trial court failed to address the pertinent factors and make specific findings regarding its exclusion of the general public from the courtroom when the child victim testified about sexual abuse; and (2) Defendant had no privacy interest in the information obtained by subpoenas issued by the State to Midcontinent, and therefore, Defendant had no standing to challenge the subpoenas. View "State v. Rolfe" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for driving with a revoked license. The indictment stemmed from a traffic stop that a law enforcement officer initiated after he noticed that Defendant's headlights appeared to be at their high-beam setting. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence and statements obtained during the stop of his vehicle, arguing that the stop should have ended after the officer confirmed Defendant did not fail to dim his headlights. The magistrate court denied the motion and later found Defendant guilty. The circuit court affirmed Defendant's conviction, including the magistrate court's denial of Defendant's suppression motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when the officer requested Defendant's driver's license, the officer had not yet completed his investigation of the failure to dim offense, and therefore, the officer's request was within the scope of the investigation attendant to the traffic stop; and (2) accordingly, there was no violation of Defendant's federal or state constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. View "State v. Bonacker" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was serving a life sentence in the South Dakota Penitentiary when he and another inmate assaulted a correctional officer, pled guilty to first-degree murder of the officer. Defendant waived his right to a jury determination of the appropriate sentence. After a pre-sentence hearing, the circuit court sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects with one exception, holding (1) in selecting a sentence, the circuit court violated Defendant's right to be free from self-incrimination by improperly considering statements made by Defendant to a psychiatrist during a competency evaluation; and (2) the use of this statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded to the circuit court to conduct a sentencing without this error. View "State v. Berget" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree rape. Defendant appealed a number of issues involving hearsay and the denial of a requested jury instruction, a Batson challenge, and an objection regarding the State's use of the word "rape" during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's challenges to testimony admitted at trial were either not preserved for appeal or were without merit; (2) the instructions that were given to the jury accurately stated the law and were not prejudicial to Defendant; (3) the trial court correctly denied Defendant's Batson challenge to the State's peremptory strike of a juror; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's objection to the use of the word "rape" during trial. View "State v. Roach" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged separately with DUI and distribution of a controlled substance. A plea agreement was reached in both cases. The state's attorney's office agreed to recommend that the DUI sentence run concurrent to the sentence imposed for the distribution charge. At Defendant's sentencing hearing, the attorney general's office initially argued against running the sentences concurrently. The assistant attorney general, however, when made aware of the plea agreement, withdrew his argument against concurrent sentences. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to six years for the DUI and five years for the distribution charge, the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State breached the plea agreement by initially arguing against concurrent sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences because Defendant did not contemporaneously object to the alleged violation of the plea agreement and because Defendant did not establish that the error caused him prejudice. View "State v. Olvera" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with and found guilty of aggravated child abuse. The charges stemmed from the bruising found on the face of Defendant's fiancee's daughter, six-year-old K.N., while K.N. was at school. Defendant appealed, arguing that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, as evidence was presented from which the jury could find that Defendant's grabbing and squeezing of K.N.'s face were enough to cause extensive bruising across K.N.'s face and neck and a subconjunctival hemorrhage in one of her eyes, and that Defendant's actions were not permissible discipline. View "State v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of arson in connection with a fire in her apartment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial based on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and by excluding an out-of-court statement made by her estranged sister. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the existing court record did not establish a manifest usurpation of Defendant's constitutional rights, her ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not ripe for review; and (2) the out-of-court statement was inadmissible hearsay, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the statement. View "State v. Hannemann" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty but mentally ill to ten counts of grand theft. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her guilty but mentally ill pleas prior to sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw her pleas of guilty but mentally ill; (2) Defendant's due process rights were not violated when she was denied the opportunity to review and comment on the entire presentence investigation report prior to sentencing; (3) Defendant's claim that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel was not ripe for review on direct appeal; and (4) Defendant's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Schmidt" on Justia Law