Lawrence v. Weber, 2011 SD 19

In January 1996, Lawrence persuaded Roster to let him waterproof her basement walls, claiming FEMA would reimburse the costs.
Over several months, Lawrence visited four times, performing work and collecting four checks totaling $5,000.90; the work was defective and did not stop seepage.
Lawrence repeatedly told Roster that FEMA would reimburse, giving varying assurances and directing her to submit invoices to FEMA.
Roster later received calls claiming FEMA involvement, which proved bogus, and FEMA ultimately refused reimbursement in 1994 or thereafter.
On May 1, 2003, a jury convicted Lawrence of theft by deception; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal; a 2006 habeas petition was denied, prompting the current appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for intent to defraud	Lawrence argues no proof of specific intent to defraud.	State contends evidence shows deliberate deception about FEMA to obtain payment.	There was sufficient evidence of intent to defraud.
Standard of review and habeas scope	Lawrence contends constitutional rights were violated by insufficient evidence.	State contends habeas review limited to jurisdictional errors or rights deprivations, not trial procedures.	Habeas review proper for jurisdictional/constitutional issues; evidence viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution supports the conviction.

State v. Morse, 753 N.W.2d 915 (S.D. 2008) (theft by deception is a specific intent crime; substantial evidence required)
State v. Jackson, 765 N.W.2d 541 (S.D. 2009) (distinguishes civil disputes from theft by deception (contractor context))
State v. Kessler, 772 N.W.2d 132 (S.D. 2009) (overturned similar theft by deception convictions for lack of intent)
Piper v. Weber, 771 N.W.2d 352 (S.D. 2009) (habeas review limited to jurisdictional and certain constitutional issues)
Steichen v. Weber, 760 N.W.2d 381 (S.D. 2009) (habeas scope as described with Piper)