Free South Dakota Supreme Court case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser. | | South Dakota Supreme Court November 26, 2020 |
|
|
Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s). | New on Verdict Legal Analysis and Commentary | In (Trial) Courts (Especially) We Trust | VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE | | Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone describe the increasing importance of courts and lawyers in safeguarding and reinforcing the role of factual truths in our democracy. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone point out that lawyers and judges are steeped in factual investigation and factual determination, and they call upon legal educators (like themselves) to continue instilling in students the commitment to analytical reasoning based in factual evidence, and to absolutely reject the notion that factual truth is just in the mind of the beholder. | Read More | The Rhetoric About a “Decline” in Religious Liberty Is Good News for Americans | MARCI A. HAMILTON | | Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, explains why the rhetoric about a “decline” in religious liberty actually signals a decline in religious triumphalism, and is a good thing. Professor Hamilton describes how religious actors wield the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) not as a shield, but as a sword to destroy the lives of fellow Americans. | Read More |
|
South Dakota Supreme Court Opinions | State v. McReynolds | Citation: 2020 S.D. 65 Opinion Date: November 24, 2020 Judge: Jensen Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law | The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of simple assault on a law enforcement officer, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of her assignments of error. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal; (2) the circuit court did not err by instructing the jury on facts not entered into the record; and (3) the circuit court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment by admitting a certified conviction from Codington County in the habitual offender trial. | | State v. Snodgrass | Citation: 2020 S.D. 66 Opinion Date: November 24, 2020 Judge: Jensen Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law | The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of eight counts of first-degree child rape and four counts of sexual contact with a child, holding that no prejudicial error occurred in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars and his motion to quash the indictment; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting internet searches and images on Defendant's cell phones and tablet; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a witness's hearsay statements; (4) the circuit court did not err in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal on any of the charges; and (5) Defendant's sentences were not cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment. | |
|
About Justia Opinion Summaries | Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. | Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas. | All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com. | You may freely redistribute this email in whole. | About Justia | Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers. |
|
|