856 N.W.2d 805
S.D.2014Background
- In 2012 a Brown County grand jury indicted Brandon Taliaferro on seven charges arising from the same facts (witness tampering, three counts of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit perjury, unauthorized disclosure of confidential abuse/neglect information, and obstructing law enforcement).
- The State dropped the conspiracy charge before trial and dismissed the obstructing charge with prejudice after resting; Taliaferro moved for acquittal on the remaining five charges and the court entered judgments of acquittal on those five.
- Taliaferro petitioned under SDCL 23A-3-27 to expunge all seven charges; the State refused consent to expunge the dismissed charges under subsection (2).
- The circuit court granted expungement as to the five acquitted charges under SDCL 23A-3-27(3) but denied expungement of the two dismissed charges because the prosecutor had not formally dismissed the entire case on the record nor consented as required by SDCL 23A-3-27(2).
- Taliaferro appealed, arguing the court could expunge the dismissed charges under (3) because they were "inextricably intertwined" with the acquitted charges and SDCL 23A-3-30 and liberal construction principles authorize relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying expungement of the two charges dismissed by the prosecutor | Taliaferro: court may expunge dismissed charges after an acquittal when charges are inextricably intertwined; SDCL 23A-3-30 and liberal construction allow relief | State: SDCL 23A-3-27(3) authorizes expungement only for specific charges that were acquitted; subsection (2) applies to dismissed charges only when the entire case is dismissed and prosecutor consents | Affirmed. SDCL 23A-3-27(2) requires formal dismissal of the entire case and prosecutorial consent; (3) applies only to the specific charge acquitted, so court lacked authority to expunge the two dismissed charges |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Expungement of Oliver, 810 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2012) (a court must have statutory authority under SDCL 23A-3-27 before applying SDCL 23A-3-30 expungement standard)
- In re Estate of Ricard, 851 N.W.2d 753 (S.D. 2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and plain language controls)
- In re Estate of Hamilton, 814 N.W.2d 141 (S.D. 2012) (same principles of statutory construction)
- State v. Schempp, 498 N.W.2d 618 (S.D. 1993) (when two constructions exist, court should adopt the one that advances legislative goals)