per se rule in South Dakota

2007Horse, 2002 SD 47, ¶ 26 , 644 N.W.2d at 224 . [¶ 16.] Thus, we hold that advisement of the possibility of being tried as an adult, although not a per se rule, is “a significant factor in evaluating the volun-tariness of a statement or confession under the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

2007Horse, 2002 SD 47, ¶ 26 , 644 N.W.2d at 224 . [¶ 16.] Thus, we hold that advisement of the possibility of being tried as an adult, although not a per se rule, is “a significant factor in evaluating the volun-tariness of a statement or confession under the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

2007See Quiriconi v. State, 96 Nev. 766 , 616 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1980); State v. Gullings, 244 Or. 173 , 416 P.2d 311, 313-14 (1966); State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28 , 558 P.2d 756, 761-62 (1977). .

2007See Quiriconi v. State, 96 Nev. 766 , 616 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1980); State v. Gullings, 244 Or. 173 , 416 P.2d 311, 313-14 (1966); State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28 , 558 P.2d 756, 761-62 (1977). .

2007See State v. Horse, 2002 SD 47, ¶ 13 , 644 N.W.2d 211, 218 ; State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269, 272 (S.D.1983). [¶ 12.] Of course, any analysis presupposes that Miranda warnings have been given.

2007See State v. Horse, 2002 SD 47, ¶ 13 , 644 N.W.2d 211, 218 ; State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269, 272 (S.D.1983). [¶-12.] Of course, any analysis presupposes that Miranda warnings have been given.

2023See State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D. 1985) (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence offered by the defendant as impeachment evidence and to implicate a third-party perpetrator); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575, 588 (S.D. 1985) (affirming the exclusion of polygraph evidence to impeach a State’s witness). -11- #29875 examiner to establish that the defendant had failed a polygraph examination regarding her involvement in a previous fire.

2018See State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575, 587-88 (S.D. 1985) (rejecting admission of polygraph-test results offered to impeach a witness’s testimony). [¶15.] Although Bertram acknowledges this Court’s per se rule against admitting polygraph-test results, he claims that “[u]ntil now, South Dakota has not had occasion to rule on polygraph admissibility when such evidence is offered to challenge witness credibility.” But contrary to Bertram’s claim, this is not a case of first impression.

2014See id. — U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1556 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013).

2014See id., — U.S. at-, 133 S.Ct. at 1556 .

2014See id. — U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1556 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013).

2014See id. — U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1556 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013).

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007See In re Andre M., 207 Ariz. 482 , 88 P.3d 552 (2004); State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1994); In re Jerrell C.J., 283 Wis.2d 145 , 699 N.W.2d 110 (2005).

2007See In re Andre M., 207 Ariz. 482 , 88 P.3d 552 (2004); State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1994); In re Jerrell C.J., 283 Wis.2d 145 , 699 N.W.2d 110 (2005).

2007NOTES [1] States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989);

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007Because “the validity of service of process is a question of law, ‘we review the trial court’s decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions.’ ” Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 15 , 613 N.W.2d 542, 545 (quoting Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, ¶ 6 , 592 N.W.2d 596, 598 (citations omitted)). “‘We [also] review constitutional questions de novo.’ ” Me dearis v. Whiting, 2005 SD 42, ¶ 14 , 695 N.W.2d 226, 230 (quoting State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 43 , 647 N.W.2d 743, 757 ). [¶ 8.] “At the outset, it is to be noted that the use of const

2007Because “the validity of service of process is a question of law, ‘we review the trial court’s decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions.’ ” Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 15 , 613 N.W.2d 542, 545 (quoting Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, ¶ 6 , 592 N.W.2d 596, 598 (citations omitted)). “‘We [also] review constitutional questions de novo.’ ” Me dearis v. Whiting, 2005 SD 42, ¶ 14 , 695 N.W.2d 226, 230 (quoting State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 43 , 647 N.W.2d 743, 757 ). [¶ 8.] “At the outset, it is to be noted that the use of const

2007Because “the validity of service of process is a question of law, ‘we review the trial court’s decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions.’ ” Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 15 , 613 N.W.2d 542, 545 (quoting Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, ¶ 6 , 592 N.W.2d 596, 598 (citations omitted)). “‘We [also] review constitutional questions de novo.’ ” Me dearis v. Whiting, 2005 SD 42, ¶ 14 , 695 N.W.2d 226, 230 (quoting State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 43 , 647 N.W.2d 743, 757 ). [¶ 8.] “At the outset, it is to be noted that the use of const

2007Because “the validity of service of process is a question of law, ‘we review the trial court’s decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions.’ ” Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 15 , 613 N.W.2d 542, 545 (quoting Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, ¶ 6 , 592 N.W.2d 596, 598 (citations omitted)). “‘We [also] review constitutional questions de novo.’ ” Me dearis v. Whiting, 2005 SD 42, ¶ 14 , 695 N.W.2d 226, 230 (quoting State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 43 , 647 N.W.2d 743, 757 ). [¶ 8.] “At the outset, it is to be noted that the use of const

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007Bank v. Searles, 331 N.W.2d 288, 291 (S.D.1983) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)).

2007Bank v. Searles, 331 N.W.2d 288, 291 (S.D.1983) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)).

2007See Quiriconi v. State, 96 Nev. 766 , 616 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1980); State v. Gullings, 244 Or. 173 , 416 P.2d 311, 313-14 (1966); State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28 , 558 P.2d 756, 761-62 (1977). .

2007See Quiriconi v. State, 96 Nev. 766 , 616 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1980); State v. Gullings, 244 Or. 173 , 416 P.2d 311, 313-14 (1966); State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28 , 558 P.2d 756, 761-62 (1977). .

2007See Quiriconi v. State, 96 Nev. 766 , 616 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1980); State v. Gullings, 244 Or. 173 , 416 P.2d 311, 313-14 (1966); State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28 , 558 P.2d 756, 761-62 (1977). .

2007See Quiriconi v. State, 96 Nev. 766 , 616 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1980); State v. Gullings, 244 Or. 173 , 416 P.2d 311, 313-14 (1966); State v. Luoma, 88 Wash.2d 28 , 558 P.2d 756, 761-62 (1977). .

2007NOTES [1] States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989);

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007NOTES [1] States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989);

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2007Because “the validity of service of process is a question of law, ‘we review the trial court’s decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions.’ ” Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 15 , 613 N.W.2d 542, 545 (quoting Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, ¶ 6 , 592 N.W.2d 596, 598 (citations omitted)). “‘We [also] review constitutional questions de novo.’ ” Me dearis v. Whiting, 2005 SD 42, ¶ 14 , 695 N.W.2d 226, 230 (quoting State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 43 , 647 N.W.2d 743, 757 ). [¶ 8.] “At the outset, it is to be noted that the use of const

2007Because “the validity of service of process is a question of law, ‘we review the trial court’s decision de novo, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions.’ ” Lekanidis v. Bendetti, 2000 SD 86, ¶ 15 , 613 N.W.2d 542, 545 (quoting Yankton Ethanol, Inc. v. Vironment, Inc., 1999 SD 42, ¶ 6 , 592 N.W.2d 596, 598 (citations omitted)). “‘We [also] review constitutional questions de novo.’ ” Me dearis v. Whiting, 2005 SD 42, ¶ 14 , 695 N.W.2d 226, 230 (quoting State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 43 , 647 N.W.2d 743, 757 ). [¶ 8.] “At the outset, it is to be noted that the use of const

2007NOTES [1] States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989);

2007States that have expressly rejected a per se rule requiring that a juvenile be warned of the possibility of adult prosecution include: Alaska, Watkinson v. State, 980 P.2d 469, 472-73 (Alaska Ct.App.1999) (identifying New Hampshire and South Dakota as the only two states to impose this requirement); Connecticut, State v. Perez, 218 Conn. 714 , 591 A.2d 119, 123-24 (1991); Delaware, Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185, 1197 ; North Carolina, State v. Taylor, 128 N.C.App. 394 , 496 S.E.2d 811, 816 (N.C.Ct.App.1998); Oklahoma, J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1390 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); Rhode Islan

2025Accordingly, we do not believe a per se rule regarding per diem or similar unit of time damages arguments is necessary but, instead, opt to allow circuit courts to exercise their discretion in each case to determine whether the argument is supported by the evidence. 9 See, e.g., Debus v. Grand Union Stores of Vermont, 621 A.2d 1288, 1290 (Vt. 1993) (“A per diem argument is a tool of persuasion used by counsel to suggest to the jury how it can quantify damages based on the evidence of pain and suffering presented.”); Richardson v. Children’s Hosp., 787 N.W.2d 235 , 246 (Neb. 2010) (concluding p

2024See 530 A.2d 445, 550 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1987).

2023See State v. Waff, 373 N.W.2d 18 (S.D. 1985) (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit polygraph evidence offered by the defendant as impeachment evidence and to implicate a third-party perpetrator); State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575, 588 (S.D. 1985) (affirming the exclusion of polygraph evidence to impeach a State’s witness). -11- #29875 examiner to establish that the defendant had failed a polygraph examination regarding her involvement in a previous fire.