pretrial motion hearing (South Dakota) · Go Syfert
← South Dakota issues

pretrial motion hearing in South Dakota

7 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Packedgreen
sd · 2007 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Therefore, subdivision SDCL 19-19-403 is substituted for SDCL § 19-12-3 to reflect the transfer of § 19-12-2 to subdivision SDCL 19-19-403. -24- #26987 questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 (quoting State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d 401, 415 ). [¶52.] At the pretrial motion hearing, the circuit court did not make a definitive ruling on the record on Birdshead’s objection to the State’s notice of intent to introduce other-act evidence at trial.

2015Yet “[w]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 (quoting State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d 401, 415 ). [¶ 52.] At the pretrial motion hearing, the circuit court did not make a definitive ruling on the record on Birdshead’s objection to the State’s notice of intent to introduce other-act evidence at trial.

22
Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Millergreen
sd · 2000 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002See Argus Leader v. Miller, 2000 SD 63, ¶ 29, n. 16 , 610 N.W.2d 76, 88, n. 16 (citing Morrison v. Kimmelman, 650 F.Supp. 801, 807 (D.N.J.1986)) (court’s specific finding is supported by the record and further explanation not required to uphold the order). [¶ 26.] Maicki, with a bachelor’s degree in psychology, informed the court at the pretrial motion hearing that she had been working in the field of domestic abuse of women for the past twenty-five years.

2002See Argus Leader v. Miller, 2000 SD 63, ¶ 29, n. 16 , 610 N.W.2d 76, 88, n. 16 (citing Morrison v. Kimmelman, 650 F.Supp. 801, 807 (D.N.J.1986)) (court’s specific finding is supported by the record and further explanation not required to uphold the order). [¶ 26.] Maicki, with a bachelor’s degree in psychology, informed the court at the pretrial motion hearing that she had been working in the field of domestic abuse of women for the past twenty-five years.

11
Morrison v. Kimmelmangreen
njd · 1986 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Argus Leader v. Miller, 2000 SD 63, ¶ 29, n. 16 , 610 N.W.2d 76, 88, n. 16 (citing Morrison v. Kimmelman, 650 F.Supp. 801, 807 (D.N.J.1986)) (court’s specific finding is supported by the record and further explanation not required to uphold the order). [¶ 26.] Maicki, with a bachelor’s degree in psychology, informed the court at the pretrial motion hearing that she had been working in the field of domestic abuse of women for the past twenty-five years.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2023Ally’s counsel did not object to the request and agreed to provide in advance the experts reports and “what they were basing their testimony on . . . .” The circuit court, however, did not set a pretrial deadline for disclosure. -36- #29790 [¶67.] Despite this, “[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S. Ct. 2066 .

2023Ally’s counsel did not object to the request and agreed to provide in advance the experts reports and “what they were basing their testimony on . . . .” The circuit court, however, did not set a pretrial deadline for disclosure. -36- #29790 [¶67.] Despite this, “[a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S. Ct. 2066 .

22023–2023
State v. Guthrie green
sd · 2001
2 sentences

2015Therefore, subdivision SDCL 19-19-403 is substituted for SDCL § 19-12-3 to reflect the transfer of § 19-12-2 to subdivision SDCL 19-19-403. -24- #26987 questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 (quoting State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d 401, 415 ). [¶52.] At the pretrial motion hearing, the circuit court did not make a definitive ruling on the record on Birdshead’s objection to the State’s notice of intent to introduce other-act evidence at trial.

2015Yet “[w]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 (quoting State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d 401, 415 ). [¶ 52.] At the pretrial motion hearing, the circuit court did not make a definitive ruling on the record on Birdshead’s objection to the State’s notice of intent to introduce other-act evidence at trial.

22015–2015
Cordell v. Weber green
sd · 2003
1 sentence

2025He acknowledged that a search was permissible under Cordell v. Weber, 2003 S.D. 143 , 673 N.W.2d 49 .

12025–2025
State v. Bradley green
sd · 1988
1 sentence

1993Bradley, supra. In the pretrial motion hearing, the court found the statements to be relevant to show Diane’s state of mind prior to her death.

11993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 19-12-3 (4) SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 22-16-15 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

MS 31 (1993–2025) NM 8 (2010–2024) GA 7 (2005–2024) SD 7 (1993–2025) MI 7 (1981–2026) IL 7 (1993–2024) TX 6 (1987–2025) MA 6 (1982–2025) KS 6 (1977–2021) AZ 5 (1985–2006) PA 4 (1979–2020) NY 4 (1988–2016) OH 3 (1994–2005) FL 3 (1999–2013) CA 3 (1978–2015) MD 3 (1969–1977) WY 2 (1979–1988) AL 2 (2001–2012) WI 2 (1997–2025) MO 2 (1972–1991) WA 2 (2014–2014) KY 2 (2019–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check