State v. Pierce

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Pierce

220 N.W.2d 254, 88 S.D. 359, 1974 S.D. LEXIS 137

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 19, 1974

DocketNo. 11325

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 N.W.2d 254 (State v. Pierce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pierce, 220 N.W.2d 254, 88 S.D. 359, 1974 S.D. LEXIS 137 (S.D. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

WOLLMAN, Justice.

An information was filed against defendant charging him with slaughtering cattle and disposing of the hide from such cattle without having the hide inspected and without securing a certificate of inspection. SDCL 40-22-5. Defendant was found guilty by a jury. He appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on the verdict.

The Custer County State’s Attorney and the Attorney General have conceded in their brief filed in this court that the state cannot find a sufficient authority in statute, case law or constitutional principles to sustain positions adverse to those asserted in five of the nine questions raised by defendant’s assignments of error. They have moved that the court remand the case to the circuit court for a new trial.

We have, of course, examined the record to determine whether the errors complained of by defendant and conceded by the state in fact justify reversal, Gibson v. United States, 329 U.S. 338, 67 S.Ct. 301, 91 L.Ed. 331; Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 62 S.Ct. 510, 86 L.Ed. 832; City of Sioux Falls v. Jager, 69 S.D. 578, 13 N.W.2d 52; State v. Dansky, 69 S.D. 311, 9 N.W.2d 752. Although it appears that at least some of the questions conceded by the state could be answered adversely to defendant, we have concluded that, after giving due regard to the considered judgment of those law enforcement officers responsible for the prosecution of the case, Gibson v. United States, supra; Young v. United States, supra, the state correctly conceded that defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, SDCL 23-45-5, should have been granted by the trial court.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court with directions that a judgment of acquittal be entered. SDCL 23-51-20.

WINANS, DOYLE and DUNN, JJ., concur. BIEGELMEIER, C. J., concurs in reversal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOLLMAN, Justice.

An information was filed against defendant charging him with slaughtering cattle and disposing of the hide from such cattle without having the hide inspected and without securing a certificate of inspection. SDCL 40-22-5. Defendant was found guilty by a jury. He appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on the verdict.

The Custer County State’s Attorney and the Attorney General have conceded in their brief filed in this court that the state cannot find a sufficient authority in statute, case law or constitutional principles to sustain positions adverse to those asserted in five of the nine questions raised by defendant’s assignments of error. They have moved that the court remand the case to the circuit court for a new trial.

We have, of course, examined the record to determine whether the errors complained of by defendant and conceded by the state in fact justify reversal, Gibson v. United States, 329 U.S. 338, 67 S.Ct. 301, 91 L.Ed. 331; Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 62 S.Ct. 510, 86 L.Ed. 832; City of Sioux Falls v. Jager, 69 S.D. 578, 13 N.W.2d 52; State v. Dansky, 69 S.D. 311, 9 N.W.2d 752. Although it appears that at least some of the questions conceded by the state could be answered adversely to defendant, we have concluded that, after giving due regard to the considered judgment of those law enforcement officers responsible for the prosecution of the case, Gibson v. United States, supra; Young v. United States, supra, the state correctly conceded that defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, SDCL 23-45-5, should have been granted by the trial court.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court with directions that a judgment of acquittal be entered. SDCL 23-51-20.

WINANS, DOYLE and DUNN, JJ., concur. BIEGELMEIER, C. J., concurs in reversal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 N.W.2d 254, 88 S.D. 359, 1974 S.D. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pierce-sd-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack