908 N.W.2d 160
S.D.2018Background
- Dustin Wilkie (son) was charged with domestic assault in Minnesota; his daughter M.M.W. reported the alleged assault and later moved to South Dakota to live with her grandfather, William Wilkie.
- A Minnesota judge issued certificates under the Uniform Act declaring Wilkie and M.M.W. material witnesses and stating no known hardship; certificates directed them to be available in Moorhead, MN for trial.
- Moody County, SD moved the South Dakota circuit court to summon them; the circuit court scheduled a show-cause hearing in Flandreau, SD for May 8, 2017.
- Wilkie and M.M.W. missed the in-person hearing (went to Moorhead by mistake); Wilkie participated by phone; neither was represented or advised of counsel by the circuit court.
- The circuit court ordered both to testify in Minnesota; Wilkie and M.M.W. appealed, arguing (1) they were denied victims’ right to be informed of the right to counsel under South Dakota’s Article VI, § 29 (Marsy’s Law), and (2) the court erred in compelling them to testify given alleged undue hardship.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Wilkie’s order to testify, reversed and remanded as to M.M.W. for additional factual findings on hardship, and held Marsy’s Law does not apply to crimes occurring wholly outside South Dakota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of SD Const. art. VI, § 29 (Marsy’s Law) to out-of-state crimes | Wilkie/M.M.W.: Marsy’s Law guarantees victims the right to be informed they may consult counsel; this applies even when victim resides in SD | State: Minnesota law governs; Marsy’s Law rights do not apply to crimes committed outside SD; at most the right is to consult, not appointed counsel | Court: Marsy’s Law inapplicable to crimes occurring wholly outside South Dakota; no obligation to advise here |
| Whether circuit court erred in summoning witnesses (materiality/necessity) | Wilkie/M.M.W.: insufficient showing both are material/necessary; SD hasn’t defined undue hardship; one witness may suffice | State: Minnesota certificate is prima facie proof of materiality/necessity; both may be necessary | Court: Minnesota certificates afforded prima facie evidence; appellants failed to rebut materiality; court did not err as to Wilkie |
| Whether undue hardship was shown to bar summons | Wilkie/M.M.W.: Wilkie cited travel costs; counselor letter said M.M.W. would suffer mental-health harm, suicidality from testifying | State: Certificates stated no known hardship; no SD evidence rebutting certificates | Court: Wilkie failed to present specific hardship evidence for himself — order affirmed; for M.M.W., the counselor’s letter raised credible hardship but court made no findings — order reversed and remanded for further factfinding |
| Appellate jurisdiction over Uniform Act proceedings in SD | Wilkie/M.M.W.: appealable as civil ‘‘special proceedings’’ under SDCL 15-26A | State: Characterized as criminal so appellate jurisdiction lacking | Court: Proceedings are civil in nature; appellate jurisdiction exists under SDCL 15-26A-3(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schwaller, 712 N.W.2d 869 (S.D. 2006) (appeal is statutory; appellate jurisdiction depends on legislative grant)
- Codey ex rel. State of New Jersey v. Capital Cities, Am. Broad. Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1993) (proceedings to enforce Uniform Act are civil and analogous to subpoena-quashing)
- Doe v. Nelson, 680 N.W.2d 302 (S.D. 2004) (principles of constitutional construction and interpreting amendments)
- Brendtro v. Nelson, 720 N.W.2d 670 (S.D. 2006) (plain-language construction; avoid strained results)
- State v. Winckler, 260 N.W.2d 356 (S.D. 1977) (SD authorities have jurisdiction only for crimes occurring in whole or in part within the state)
- Nemec v. Goeman, 810 N.W.2d 443 (S.D. 2012) (standard for when a presumption is rebutted with substantial, credible evidence)