Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of distribution of a controlled drug or substance and three counts of possession of a controlled drug or substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the circuit court (1) did not violate Defendant’s due process rights in denying his motion to suppress an in-court identification stemming from an improper photo lineup; (2) did not err in refusing Defendant’s proposed jury instruction regarding cross-racial identification; and (3) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. View "State v. Chuol" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was fifteen years old and a native Spanish speaker, was transported to the police department for questioning in connection with the death of Jasmine Guevara. During her questioning by police, Defendant confessed to the murder. Defendant moved to suppress her confession, arguing that she did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive her Miranda rights. The juvenile court denied the motion. The case was then transferred to adult court in the First Judicial Circuit. The trial court reopened the motion to suppress and granted the motion, concluding that Defendant made her statements voluntarily but did not knowingly and intelligently waive her rights. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in suppressing Defendant’s confession where the State met its burden to show more likely than not that Defendant’s waiver of her Miranda rights was “with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” View "State v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to grand theft by insufficient funds check. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to eight years in the penitentiary. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed properly to advise him of all of his constitutional and statutory rights at his plea hearing and that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea; and (2) Defendant’s contention that his eight-year penitentiary sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment was without merit. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

A federal court issued an arrest warrant for Christopher Yellow Eagle, whose warrant was referred to a task force that included federal and county law enforcement officers. The task force officers learned Yellow Eagle was living with Defendant, who had an outstanding warrant for her arrest. The task force arrested Defendant and Yellow Eagle at Defendant’s home after observing that Defendant and Yellow Eagle appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance and had drugs on their persons. After a court trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to four years incarceration with four years suspended. Defendant appealed the circuit court’s denial of her motion to suppress, arguing (1) the task force officers who executed the arrest warrant were not authorized to enter her home to arrest her, and (2) because Yellow Eagle was a third party in her home, the officers were required to obtain a separate search warrant for the home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the task force officers constitutionally entered Defendant’s home to arrest Defendant, or alternatively, Yellow Eagle. View "State v. Quevedo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of eight counts of making false or fraudulent sales tax returns. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in (1) denying his Batson challenges to three peremptory strikes exercised by the State because the court’s Batson analysis was incomplete; and (2) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court (1) held that because the Court was unable to determine under the record the circuit court’s reason for denying the Batson challenges, limited remand was required to allow the circuit court to engage in the missing analysis; and (2) affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. View "State v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

In 2001, Plaintiff, a Honduran national, pleaded guilty to a felony in South Dakota and received a four-year suspended sentence. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his 2001 conviction, asserting that the conviction was invalid because he pleaded guilty without being given Padilla and Boykin advisements. The circuit court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because coram nobis was unavailable to remedy Plaintiff’s claimed Padilla and Boykin violations, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the State. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to several offenses, including first-degree felony murder. Defendant was sentenced to death on the murder charge. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence. Defendant subsequently filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he did not validly waive his right to have a jury determine whether to impose the death penalty. The Supreme Court granted the writ and vacated Defendant’s death sentence. On remand, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The circuit court denied the motion on the merits, and the case proceeded to a jury sentencing. Thereafter, the jury sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and the proportionality of his sentence, holding (1) although the circuit court’s denial on the merits of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was in excess of what was permitted by the limited remand, Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was properly denied; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was lawfully imposed by the jury. View "State v. Piper" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to eight years incarceration. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. At issue on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence establishing that Defendant exercised dominion or control over a video file containing child pornography when the State presented no direct evidence that Defendant possessed the video, but rather relied on circumstantial evidence to convict Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Riley" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and obstructing a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Specifically, Defendant contended that police officers did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop or frisk him, and therefore, the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant was not subjected to an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore, the subsequently discovered evidence was admissible. View "State v. Mohr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several sex-related crimes, all involving one particular child victim. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion by allowing a police detective's opinion on why defendants accused of sex offenses against children do not confess during interrogation; (2) did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the child victim's statements made to a forensic interviewer; and (3) abused its discretion in allowing an expert witness for the State to give a medical diagnosis of "child sexual abuse." View "State v. Buchholtz" on Justia Law