7 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ellingson v. Ammanngreen2 sentences2025See Dunham v. Sabers, 2022 S.D. 65 , ¶ 67 n.9, 981 N.W.2d 620 , 643 n.9 (“We have stated that ‘[a] party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal . . . .’” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ellingson v. Ammann, 2013 S.D. 32, ¶ 10 , 830 N.W.2d 99, 102 )). [¶26.] But, preserved or not, there is no justification for the categorical rule Gary suggests. 2025See Dunham v. Sabers, 2022 S.D. 65 , ¶ 67 n.9, 981 N.W.2d 620 , 643 n.9 (“We have stated that ‘[a] party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal . . . .’” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ellingson v. Ammann, 2013 S.D. 32, ¶ 10 , 830 N.W.2d 99, 102 )). [¶26.] But, preserved or not, there is no justification for the categorical rule Gary suggests. | 1 | 1 |
Dunham v. Sabersgreen2 sentences2025See Dunham v. Sabers, 2022 S.D. 65 , ¶ 67 n.9, 981 N.W.2d 620 , 643 n.9 (“We have stated that ‘[a] party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal . . . .’” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ellingson v. Ammann, 2013 S.D. 32, ¶ 10 , 830 N.W.2d 99, 102 )). [¶26.] But, preserved or not, there is no justification for the categorical rule Gary suggests. 2025See Dunham v. Sabers, 2022 S.D. 65 , ¶ 67 n.9, 981 N.W.2d 620 , 643 n.9 (“We have stated that ‘[a] party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal . . . .’” (first alteration in original) (quoting Ellingson v. Ammann, 2013 S.D. 32, ¶ 10 , 830 N.W.2d 99, 102 )). [¶26.] But, preserved or not, there is no justification for the categorical rule Gary suggests. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Westerfieldgreen2 sentences2024See id. ¶ 7 (“Because the error in this case does not fit the categorical framework, we conclude that no structural error occurred.”). -9- #30305 credibility of a witness.’” Id. (quoting State v. McKinney, 2005 S.D. 73 , ¶ 32, 699 N.W.2d 471, 481 ). [¶25.] Nor can a prosecutor “plac[e] the prestige of the government behind the witness and imply[ ] that the prosecutor knows what the truth is and thereby assure[ ] its revelation.” State v. Nelson, 2022 S.D. 12, ¶ 38 , 970 N.W.2d 814, 826 (quoting State v. Westerfield, 1997 S.D. 100 , ¶ 12, 567 N.W.2d 863, 867 ). 2024“If a prosecutor conveys this message explicitly or implicitly, they are improperly vouching.” Id. (citing Jenner v. Leapley, 521 N.W.2d 422, 427 (S.D. 1994)). [¶26.] Heer identifies the following statements by the prosecutor as improper vouching: • “I think circumstantially there is no other basis for where that methamphetamine comes from, except from this defendant.” • “I think you can also look at this and believe that it was proven both by direct and circumstantial evidence combined.” • “I don’t think there is any doubt . . . so I don’t believe there is any issue who sold this. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKinneygreen1 sentence2024See id. ¶ 7 (“Because the error in this case does not fit the categorical framework, we conclude that no structural error occurred.”). -9- #30305 credibility of a witness.’” Id. (quoting State v. McKinney, 2005 S.D. 73 , ¶ 32, 699 N.W.2d 471, 481 ). [¶25.] Nor can a prosecutor “plac[e] the prestige of the government behind the witness and imply[ ] that the prosecutor knows what the truth is and thereby assure[ ] its revelation.” State v. Nelson, 2022 S.D. 12, ¶ 38 , 970 N.W.2d 814, 826 (quoting State v. Westerfield, 1997 S.D. 100 , ¶ 12, 567 N.W.2d 863, 867 ). | 1 | 1 |
Jenner v. Leapleygreen1 sentence2024“If a prosecutor conveys this message explicitly or implicitly, they are improperly vouching.” Id. (citing Jenner v. Leapley, 521 N.W.2d 422, 427 (S.D. 1994)). [¶26.] Heer identifies the following statements by the prosecutor as improper vouching: • “I think circumstantially there is no other basis for where that methamphetamine comes from, except from this defendant.” • “I think you can also look at this and believe that it was proven both by direct and circumstantial evidence combined.” • “I don’t think there is any doubt . . . so I don’t believe there is any issue who sold this. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2024See id. ¶ 7 (“Because the error in this case does not fit the categorical framework, we conclude that no structural error occurred.”). -9- #30305 credibility of a witness.’” Id. (quoting State v. McKinney, 2005 S.D. 73 , ¶ 32, 699 N.W.2d 471, 481 ). [¶25.] Nor can a prosecutor “plac[e] the prestige of the government behind the witness and imply[ ] that the prosecutor knows what the truth is and thereby assure[ ] its revelation.” State v. Nelson, 2022 S.D. 12, ¶ 38 , 970 N.W.2d 814, 826 (quoting State v. Westerfield, 1997 S.D. 100 , ¶ 12, 567 N.W.2d 863, 867 ). 2024See id. ¶ 7 (“Because the error in this case does not fit the categorical framework, we conclude that no structural error occurred.”). -9- #30305 credibility of a witness.’” Id. (quoting State v. McKinney, 2005 S.D. 73 , ¶ 32, 699 N.W.2d 471, 481 ). [¶25.] Nor can a prosecutor “plac[e] the prestige of the government behind the witness and imply[ ] that the prosecutor knows what the truth is and thereby assure[ ] its revelation.” State v. Nelson, 2022 S.D. 12, ¶ 38 , 970 N.W.2d 814, 826 (quoting State v. Westerfield, 1997 S.D. 100 , ¶ 12, 567 N.W.2d 863, 867 ). | 1 | 1 |
Soucy v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See also Brewer v. State, 341 P.3d 1107, 1114 (Alaska 2014) (declining to hold under the Alaska Takings Clause “that every valid exercise of the police power . . . results in a noncompensable taking”); Soucy v. State, 506 A.2d 288, 290 (N.H. 1985) (discussing under the New Hampshire Takings Clause that whether an exercise of police power goes “too far . . . must be determined under its own circumstances” rather than a categorical exception). 5. | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See also Brewer v. State, 341 P.3d 1107, 1114 (Alaska 2014) (declining to hold under the Alaska Takings Clause “that every valid exercise of the police power . . . results in a noncompensable taking”); Soucy v. State, 506 A.2d 288, 290 (N.H. 1985) (discussing under the New Hampshire Takings Clause that whether an exercise of police power goes “too far . . . must be determined under its own circumstances” rather than a categorical exception). 5. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Running Birdgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Running Bird, 2002 SD 86, ¶¶ 31-35 , 649 N.W.2d 609, 616 . 2007See State v. Running Bird, 2002 SD 86, ¶¶ 31-35 , 649 N.W.2d 609, 616 . | 1 | 1 |
| 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. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2023Banks’s argument centers on this Court’s statements in Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 30 , 963 N.W.2d at 333 , directing that mitigating evidence must be considered at sentencing, and the fact that the rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing hearings. 2023Banks’s argument centers on this Court’s statements in Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 30 , 963 N.W.2d at 333 , directing that mitigating evidence must be considered at sentencing, and the fact that the rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing hearings. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Owens
green
1 sentence2020The Court in Owens related as a specific example a witness stating, “I don’t know whether this is the man who assaulted me, but I told the police I believed so earlier.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Maryland v. Shatzer
green
2 sentences2019Indeed, the argument seems at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Shatzer , which recognized instances in which police officers could, indeed, reinitiate questioning despite a suspect's earlier invocation of *801 Miranda rights. 559 U.S. at 110 , 130 S.Ct. at 1223 . [¶39.] Under the circumstances, therefore, it is unnecessary to address the question of whether Uhre unequivocally invoked his right to counsel or the details of Attorney Rohl's communication with Deputy Bostrom. 2019Indeed, the argument seems at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in Shatzer , which recognized instances in which police officers could, indeed, reinitiate questioning despite a suspect's earlier invocation of *801 Miranda rights. 559 U.S. at 110 , 130 S.Ct. at 1223 . [¶39.] Under the circumstances, therefore, it is unnecessary to address the question of whether Uhre unequivocally invoked his right to counsel or the details of Attorney Rohl's communication with Deputy Bostrom. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.