fundamental error in South Dakota

2026“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting Gartner v. Temple, 2014 S.D. 74 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 846, 850 ).

2025“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Gartner v. Temple, 2014 S.D. 74 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 846, 850 (quoting Arneson v. Arneson, 2003 S.D. 125 , ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d 904, 910 ). [¶14.] “Pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard of review, factual determinations are subject to a clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Guthrie, 2002 S.D. 138 , ¶ 5, 654 N.W.2d 201, 203 .

2024In the State’s view, the Court has used different definitions since stating in State v. Delehoy that “[t]he correct statement of review is as follows: An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” 2019 S.D. 30, ¶ 22 , 929 N.W.2d 103, 109 (quoting Thurman v. CUNA Mut’l Ins.

2024It is an abuse of discretion for a circuit court to make “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable[,]” id. ¶ 22, 929 N.W.2d at 109 , and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to exercise its discretion “to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence,” Reeves, 2021 S.D. 64, ¶ 11 , 967 N.W.2d at 147.

2025“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” MacKaben v. MacKaben, 2015 S.D. 86 , ¶ 9, 871 N.W.2d 617, 622 (quoting Gartner v. Temple, 2014 S.D. 74 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 846, 850 ). [¶19.] “We have described South Dakota, in general terms, as an ‘all property state,’ which means that ‘all property of both of the divorcing parties [is] subject to equitable division by the [circuit] court, regardless of title or origin.’” Field v. Field, 2020 S.D. 51, ¶ 16 , 94

2022“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” MacKaben v. MacKaben, 2015 S.D. 86 , ¶ 9, 871 N.W.2d 617, 622 (quoting Gartner v. Temple, 2014 S.D. 74 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 846, 850 ).

2025“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Gartner v. Temple, 2014 S.D. 74 , ¶ 7, 855 N.W.2d 846, 850 (quoting Arneson v. Arneson, 2003 S.D. 125 , ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d 904, 910 ). [¶14.] “Pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard of review, factual determinations are subject to a clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Guthrie, 2002 S.D. 138 , ¶ 5, 654 N.W.2d 201, 203 .

2023An abuse of discretion occurs when there is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Arneson v. Arneson, 2003 S.D. 125 , ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d 904, 910 .

2025“An abuse of discretion is ‘a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the reasonable range of permissible choices, a decision . . . [that], on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Coester v. Waubay Twp., 2018 S.D. 24 , ¶ 7, 909 N.W.2d 709, 711 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Wald, Inc. v. Stanley, 2005 S.D. 112 , ¶ 8, 706 N.W.2d 626, 629 ).

2023“An abuse of discretion is ‘a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the reasonable range of permissible choices, a decision . . . [that], on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Coester v. Waubay Twp., 2018 S.D. 24 , ¶ 7, 909 N.W.2d 709, 711 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Wald, Inc. v. Stanley, 2005 S.D. 112 , ¶ 8, 706 N.W.2d 626, 629 ).

1992In Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, 315 N.W.2d 689, 691 (S.D.1982) we expressed the following proposition: “It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that all provisions within a statute must be given effect, if possible.” (Citing State v. Heisinger, 252 N.W.2d 899 (S.D.1977).

1992Such a construction would violate a fundamental rule of statutory construction: "[I]f possible, effect must be given to all provisions within the statute_” State v. Heisinger, 252 N.W.2d 899, 903 (S.D.1977). 4 .

2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[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. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T

2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[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. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T

2025The parties have not disputed this finding. -9- #30180 range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable.’” Stern Oil Co., Inc. v. Brown, 2018 S.D. 15 , ¶ 46, 908 N.W.2d 144, 157 (citation omitted). [¶25.] We have previously explained that “[w]hile a [circuit] court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy, . . . ‘[t]o say that a decision is discretionary is not to mean that it is unguided.’” Lien, 2004 S.D. 8 , ¶ 27 n.3, 674 N.W.2d at 825 n.3 (third alteration in original) (quoting Adrian, 2002 S.D. 10 , ¶ 10, 639 N.W.2d at 533

2009See generally Adrian v. McKinnie, 2002 SD 10, ¶ 10 , 639 N.W.2d 529, 533 (citations omitted).

2011Safety, 2006 S.D. 96 , ¶ 14, 724 N.W.2d 175, 179 ).

2008Safety, 2006 SD 96, ¶ 14 , 724 N.W.2d 175, 179 (quoting State v. $1,010.00 in Am.

2020An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Lemler, 2009 S.D. 86 , ¶ 40, 774 N.W.2d 272, 286 . [¶24.] Taylor argues the other act evidence regarding the alleged sexual assaults of P.R. and T.B. was not properly admitted under SDCL 19-19-404(b) because it was improper character evidence.

2020An abuse of discretion is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Kvasnicka, 2013 S.D. 25, ¶ 17 , 829 N.W.2d 123 , 127–28 (quoting State v. Lemler, 2009 S.D. 86 , ¶ 40, 774 N.W.2d 272, 286 ).

2024An abuse of discretion is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Under the abuse of discretion standard, “not only must error be demonstrated, but it must also be shown to be prejudicial.” State v. Harruff, 2020 S.D. 4, ¶ 14 , 939 N.W.2d 20, 25 (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Stone, 2019 S.D. 18, ¶ 22 , 925 N.W.2d 488, 497 ).

2023The court also noted that much of the State’s discussion with the venire focused on its effort to ensure the prospective jurors would not acquit Black Cloud solely because of his youth—a topic the court concluded was a permissible subject for voir dire. [¶40.] We review the circuit court’s decision to deny a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion and apply our familiar rule that holds a mistrial “will not be -15- #29946 granted unless there is a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Thomas, 2019 S.D. 1, ¶ 27 , 922 N.W.2d 9, 17 (quoting State v. Johnson, 2001 S.D. 80 ,

2000“It is a fundamental rule of contract construction that the entire contract and each and all of its provisions must be given meaning if that can consistently and reasonably be done.” Dail v. Vodicka, 89 S.D. 600 , 237 N.W.2d 7, 9 (S.D.1975); see also Watertown, v. Dakota, MN, and Eastn.

2000“It is a fundamental rule of contract construction that the entire contract and each and all of its provisions must be given meaning if that can consistently and reasonably be done.” Dail v. Vodicka, 89 S.D. 600 , 237 N.W.2d 7, 9 (S.D.1975); see also Watertown, v. Dakota, MN, and Eastn.

2023“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Holler, 2020 S.D. 28, ¶ 10 , 944 N.W.2d 339, 342 ). -22- #29933 [¶52.] “Circuit courts have broad discretion in sentencing.” Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 28 , 958 N.W.2d at 741 (quoting Holler, 2020 S.D. 28, ¶ 17 , 944 N.W.2d at 344 ).

2023“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Holler, 2020 S.D. 28, ¶ 10 , 944 N.W.2d 339, 342 ). -22- #29933 [¶52.] “Circuit courts have broad discretion in sentencing.” Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 28 , 958 N.W.2d at 741 (quoting Holler, 2020 S.D. 28, ¶ 17 , 944 N.W.2d at 344 ).

2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (citation omitted).

2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (citation omitted).

2024“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices.” State v. Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 27 , 963 N.W.2d 326, 332 (quoting State v. Rice, 2016 S.D. 18, ¶ 23 , 877 N.W.2d 75, 83 ). -14- #30353 favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Birdshead, 2016 S.D. 87 , ¶ 18, 888 N.W.2d at 215 (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 281–82, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 1948 , 144 L.

2024“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices.” State v. Mitchell, 2021 S.D. 46, ¶ 27 , 963 N.W.2d 326, 332 (quoting State v. Rice, 2016 S.D. 18, ¶ 23 , 877 N.W.2d 75, 83 ). -14- #30353 favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Birdshead, 2016 S.D. 87 , ¶ 18, 888 N.W.2d at 215 (quoting Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 281–82, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 1948 , 144 L.

2023On appeal, Shibly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for only the felony charge. -10- #30025 abuse of discretion is ‘a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting State v. Kvasnicka, 2013 S.D. 25, ¶ 17 , 829 N.W.2d 123 , 127–28).

2022An abuse of discretion is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Kvasnicka, 2013 S.D. 25, ¶ 17 , 829 N.W.2d 123 , 127–28 (citations omitted).

2026“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the reasonable range of permissible choices, a decision . . . [that], on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12, ¶ 7 , 18 N.W.3d 649 , 654 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Coester v. Waubay Twp., 2018 S.D. 24 , ¶ 7, 909 N.W.2d 709, 711 ).

2026“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the reasonable range of permissible choices, a decision . . . [that], on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12, ¶ 7 , 18 N.W.3d 649 , 654 (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Coester v. Waubay Twp., 2018 S.D. 24 , ¶ 7, 909 N.W.2d 709, 711 ).

2018"An abuse of discretion 'is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable.' " Erickson v. Earley , 2016 S.D. 37 , ¶ 8, 878 N.W.2d 631 , 634 (quoting Blair-Arch v. Arch , 2014 S.D. 94 , ¶ 10, 857 N.W.2d 874 , 877 ).

2018"An abuse of discretion 'is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable.' " Erickson v. Earley , 2016 S.D. 37 , ¶ 8, 878 N.W.2d 631 , 634 (quoting Blair-Arch v. Arch , 2014 S.D. 94 , ¶ 10, 857 N.W.2d 874 , 877 ).

2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[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. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T

2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[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. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T

2024In the State’s view, the Court has used different definitions since stating in State v. Delehoy that “[t]he correct statement of review is as follows: An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” 2019 S.D. 30, ¶ 22 , 929 N.W.2d 103, 109 (quoting Thurman v. CUNA Mut’l Ins.

2024See Delehoy, 2019 S.D. 30, ¶ 22 , 929 N.W.2d at 109 (providing that a fundamental error of judgment is an abuse of discretion). [¶21.] However, the State contends the circuit court’s error does not necessitate reversal and remand because Abraham-Medved has failed to show prejudice, namely that it is likely “she would have received a more favorable sentence had she been represented by an attorney other than Mr. Doody.” In response, Abraham-Medved claims she was prejudiced because Doody “did not display a thorough knowledge of the record[,]” and his “insufficient representation at sentencing cau

2024An abuse of discretion is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Under the abuse of discretion standard, “not only must error be demonstrated, but it must also be shown to be prejudicial.” State v. Harruff, 2020 S.D. 4, ¶ 14 , 939 N.W.2d 20, 25 (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Stone, 2019 S.D. 18, ¶ 22 , 925 N.W.2d 488, 497 ).

2023The court also noted that much of the State’s discussion with the venire focused on its effort to ensure the prospective jurors would not acquit Black Cloud solely because of his youth—a topic the court concluded was a permissible subject for voir dire. [¶40.] We review the circuit court’s decision to deny a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion and apply our familiar rule that holds a mistrial “will not be -15- #29946 granted unless there is a showing of actual prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Thomas, 2019 S.D. 1, ¶ 27 , 922 N.W.2d 9, 17 (quoting State v. Johnson, 2001 S.D. 80 ,

2025An abuse of discretion is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 57, 764 N.W.2d 474, 490 (quoting Hogen v. Pifer, 2008 S.D. 96 , ¶ 9, 757 N.W.2d 160, 163 ).

2019An abuse of discretion is "a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable." Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc ., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 57, 764 N.W.2d 474 , 490 (quoting Hogen v. Pifer , 2008 S.D. 96 , ¶ 9, 757 N.W.2d 160 , 163 ). [¶17.] Where, as here, the 90-day deadline provided by the rules expired before Leighton moved for enlargement of *471 time, we have identified the following principles to guide our excusable neglect analysis.

2025An abuse of discretion is “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 57, 764 N.W.2d 474, 490 (quoting Hogen v. Pifer, 2008 S.D. 96 , ¶ 9, 757 N.W.2d 160, 163 ).

2021“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Ridco, Inc., 2015 S.D. 24, ¶ 14 , 863 N.W.2d 540, 546 ). [¶11.] “Rebuttal evidence is that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence.

2024“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 26 , 958 N.W.2d at 740 ). [¶12.] “Circuit courts have broad discretion in sentencing.” Id. ¶ 52, 985 N.W.2d at 758 (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 28 , 958 N.W.2d at 741 ).

2024“An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 26 , 958 N.W.2d at 740 ). [¶12.] “Circuit courts have broad discretion in sentencing.” Id. ¶ 52, 985 N.W.2d at 758 (quoting Klinetobe, 2021 S.D. 24, ¶ 28 , 958 N.W.2d at 741 ).

2016“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that courts do not adjudicate issues that are not actually before them in the form of cases . . . .” State v. Kvasnicka, 2013 S.D. 25, ¶ 23 , 829 N.W.2d 123, 129 (quoting Moeller v. Weber, 2004 S.D. 110 , ¶ 45, 689 N.W.2d 1, 16 ).

2016“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that courts do not adjudicate issues that are not actually before them in the form of cases.... ” State v. Kvasnicka, 2013 S.D. 25, ¶ 23 , 829 N.W.2d 123, 129 (quoting Moeller v. Weber, 2004 S.D. 110 , ¶ 45, 689 N.W.2d 1, 16 ).

2013Abuse of discretion is defined as “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Lemler, 2009 S.D. 86 , ¶ 40, 774 N.W.2d 272, 286 (quoting Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 2007 S.D. 82 , ¶ 12, 737 N.W.2d 397, 402 ). [¶ 18.] Additionally, “the trial court has broad discretion concerning the qualification of experts and the admission of expert testimony.” State v. Running Bird, 2002 S.D. 86 , ¶ 38, 649 N.W.2d 609, 617 (quoting State v. Logue, 372 N.W.2d 151, 156

2013It is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’ ” State v. Lender, 2009 S.D. 86 , ¶ 40, 774 N.W.2d 272, 286 (quoting Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 2007 S.D. 82 , ¶ 12, 737 N.W.2d 397, 402 ).

2026Given this reading and study, combined with his medical training and board certification, we cannot say the circuit court’s decision to qualify Dr. Manlove as an expert was “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Weiland v. Bumann, 2025 S.D. 9, ¶ 57 , 18 N.W.3d 148 , 161 (quoting Weber v. Weber, 2023 S.D. 64, ¶ 15 , 999 N.W.2d 230, 234 ).

2026Given this reading and study, combined with his medical training and board certification, we cannot say the circuit court’s decision to qualify Dr. Manlove as an expert was “a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Weiland v. Bumann, 2025 S.D. 9, ¶ 57 , 18 N.W.3d 148 , 161 (quoting Weber v. Weber, 2023 S.D. 64, ¶ 15 , 999 N.W.2d 230, 234 ).