Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Guthmiller v. Webergreen2 sentences2021After Blem, we recognized “[t]he United States Supreme Court has only found errors to be structural when there has been (1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard.” Guthmiller, 2011 S.D. 62, ¶ 16 , 804 N.W.2d at 406 . 2021After Blem, we recognized “[t]he United States Supreme Court has only found errors to be structural when there has been (1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard.” Guthmiller, 2011 S.D. 62, ¶ 16 , 804 N.W.2d at 406 . | 2 | 7 |
State v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2016The United States Supreme Court has found structural error only when there has been “(1) a deprivation of tiie right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard.” Hayes, 2014 S.D, 72, ¶ 17, 855 N.W.2d 668, 674 (quoting Guthmiller v. Weber, 2011 S.D. 62, ¶ 16 , 804 N.W.2d 400, 406 ). 2016Regardless, as explained above, a new trial is not warranted because Pursley was not prejudiced. [¶ 15.] We affirm. [¶ 16.] ZINTER, SEVERSON, WILBUR, and KERN, Justices, concur. * Automatic reversal is required, and harmless-error analysis does not apply, when “there has been ‘(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful’ exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard.’" State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 7 | 2 | 3 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015However, structural errors occur only “in a very limited class of cases.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). [¶ 6.] This Court, following Neder , has only recognized six types of structural error: (1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard. 2015However, structural errors occur only “in a very limited class of cases.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999). [¶ 6.] This Court, following Neder , has only recognized six types of structural error: (1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard. | 1 | 5 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2014A structural error so “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds that automatic reversal is required.” Guthmiller, 2011 S.D. 62, ¶ 16 , 804 N.W.2d at 406 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2083 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring)) (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 17.] The United States Supreme Court has found an error to be structural only when there has been “(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of s 2014A structural error so “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds that automatic reversal is required.” Guthmiller, 2011 S.D. 62, ¶ 16 , 804 N.W.2d at 406 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 , 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2083 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring)) (internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 17.] The United States Supreme Court has found an error to be structural only when there has been “(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of s | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Blem
green
1 sentence2018Rather, he relies on Blem , in which we held that "a substantial failure to comply with jury selection statutes is a structural error[.]" 2000 S.D. 69 , ¶ 29, 610 N.W.2d at 810 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Arguello
green
2 sentences2018They include: "(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant's race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard." *649 Arguello , 2015 S.D. 103 , ¶ 6, 873 N.W.2d at 493 (quoting Guthmiller , 2011 S.D. 62 , ¶ 16, 804 N.W.2d at 406 ). [¶ 15.] Miller concedes that this case does not concern one of the six recognized structural errors. 2018They include: "(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant's race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard." *649 Arguello , 2015 S.D. 103 , ¶ 6, 873 N.W.2d at 493 (quoting Guthmiller , 2011 S.D. 62 , ¶ 16, 804 N.W.2d at 406 ). [¶ 15.] Miller concedes that this case does not concern one of the six recognized structural errors. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rose v. Clark
green
2 sentences2016Regardless, as explained above, a new trial is not warranted because Pursley was not prejudiced. [¶ 15.] We affirm. [¶ 16.] ZINTER, SEVERSON, WILBUR, and KERN, Justices, concur. * Automatic reversal is required, and harmless-error analysis does not apply, when “there has been ‘(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful’ exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard.’" State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 7 2016Regardless, as explained above, a new trial is not warranted because Pursley was not prejudiced. [¶ 15.] We affirm. [¶ 16.] ZINTER, SEVERSON, WILBUR, and KERN, Justices, concur. * Automatic reversal is required, and harmless-error analysis does not apply, when “there has been ‘(1) a deprivation of the right to counsel; (2) a biased judge; (3) an unlawful’ exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race; (4) a deprivation of the right of self-representation at trial; (5) a deprivation of the right to a public trial; and (6) an erroneous reasonable doubt standard.’" State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 7 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2016The Supreme Court also analyzed the distinction in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). 2016The Supreme Court also analyzed the distinction in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.