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.
6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burtzlaffgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Knecht, 1997 S.D. 53 , ¶ 10, 563 N.W.2d 413, 418 (citing State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1, 7 (S.D. 1992)) (noting that “[w]hen a defendant raises the affirmative defense of self-defense, it is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law”). [¶44.] Therefore, when considering the incorrect and confusing directives in Instruction 25, in its entirety, along with the other instructions as a whole, a reasonable juror could have understood that the State need only rebut the presumption that Hermanek intended the Sprys t 2026See, e.g., State v. Knecht, 1997 S.D. 53 , ¶ 10, 563 N.W.2d 413, 418 (citing State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1, 7 (S.D. 1992)) (noting that “[w]hen a defendant raises the affirmative defense of self-defense, it is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law”). [¶44.] Therefore, when considering the incorrect and confusing directives in Instruction 25, in its entirety, along with the other instructions as a whole, a reasonable juror could have understood that the State need only rebut the presumption that Hermanek intended the Sprys t | 4 | 4 |
State v. Knechtgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Knecht, 1997 S.D. 53 , ¶ 10, 563 N.W.2d 413, 418 (citing State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1, 7 (S.D. 1992)) (noting that “[w]hen a defendant raises the affirmative defense of self-defense, it is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law”). [¶44.] Therefore, when considering the incorrect and confusing directives in Instruction 25, in its entirety, along with the other instructions as a whole, a reasonable juror could have understood that the State need only rebut the presumption that Hermanek intended the Sprys t 2026See, e.g., State v. Knecht, 1997 S.D. 53 , ¶ 10, 563 N.W.2d 413, 418 (citing State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1, 7 (S.D. 1992)) (noting that “[w]hen a defendant raises the affirmative defense of self-defense, it is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law”). [¶44.] Therefore, when considering the incorrect and confusing directives in Instruction 25, in its entirety, along with the other instructions as a whole, a reasonable juror could have understood that the State need only rebut the presumption that Hermanek intended the Sprys t | 4 | 4 |
State v. Larsongreen2 sentences1999See Larson, 1998 SD 80, ¶ 30 , 582 N.W.2d at 21 (citation omitted) (stating State must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt); Knecht, 1997 SD 53, ¶ 10 , 563 N.W.2d at 418 (citation omitted) (“When a defendant raises the affirmative defense of self-defense, it is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law.”). 1999See Larson, 1998 SD 80, ¶ 30 , 582 N.W.2d at 21 (citation omitted) (stating State must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt); Knecht, 1997 SD 53, ¶ 10 , 563 N.W.2d at 418 (citation omitted) (“When a defendant raises the affirmative defense of self-defense, it is incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law.”). | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Franklingreen2 sentences1992Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344, 353 (1985); State v. Wilcox, 48 S.D. 289, 297 , 204 N.W. 369, 372 (1925). 1992Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344, 353 (1985); State v. Wilcox, 48 S.D. 289, 297 , 204 N.W. 369, 372 (1925). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilcoxgreen2 sentences1992Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344, 353 (1985); State v. Wilcox, 48 S.D. 289, 297 , 204 N.W. 369, 372 (1925). 1992Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344, 353 (1985); State v. Wilcox, 48 S.D. 289, 297 , 204 N.W. 369, 372 (1925). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.
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.