State v. Bettelyoun, Ehret, Osborne, 972 N.W.2d 124

Three minors (Osborne, Bettelyoun, Ehret) were stopped for suspected impaired driving and charged in magistrate court under SDCL 32-23-1 for driving with BAC ≥ .08; measured BACs: Osborne .129, Bettelyoun .189, Ehret .103.
Each moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that juveniles who consume alcohol must be charged only under the zero-tolerance statute (SDCL 32-23-21) as CHINS (SDCL 26-8B-2), which lies in circuit court.
Magistrate courts denied the motions; each defendant pleaded guilty and received suspended imposition of sentence; circuit courts affirmed the magistrates’ rulings on appeal.
The consolidated appeals to the South Dakota Supreme Court presented a pure statutory-interpretation question about whether SDCL 26-11-1/26-8B-2/32-23-21 preclude prosecution of juveniles in magistrate court under SDCL 32-23-1.
The core statutory tension: SDCL 32-23-21 (zero tolerance) was expressly added to the CHINS definition in 2004, but SDCL 32-23-1 (general DUI statute) contains broad, age-neutral language prohibiting driving with BAC ≥ .08.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether magistrate courts had subject-matter jurisdiction to try juveniles under SDCL 32-23-1 when the conduct also fits the zero-tolerance CHINS provision (SDCL 32-23-21/26-8B-2).	State: SDCL 32-23-1 is age-neutral and not listed in CHINS; prosecutors have discretion to charge under either statute and magistrate courts have jurisdiction over SDCL 32-23-1.	Appellants: Because underage conduct falls within SDCL 32-23-21 and that statute is included in the CHINS definition, juveniles must be charged in juvenile court and magistrates lack jurisdiction.	The statutes are clear and harmonious: the State may charge juveniles under either SDCL 32-23-1 or SDCL 32-23-21; magistrate courts had jurisdiction to prosecute under SDCL 32-23-1. Judgment affirmed.

United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (subject-matter-jurisdiction principle)
State v. Janssen, 371 N.W.2d 353 (S.D. 1985) (information confers jurisdiction)
State v. Thoman, 955 N.W.2d 759 (S.D. 2021) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Secrest, 331 N.W.2d 580 (S.D. 1983) (government may prosecute under either of two overlapping statutes)
State v. French, 509 N.W.2d 693 (S.D. 1993) (prosecutor not obligated to select a particular statutory theory)
Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 612 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2000) (canon that specific statute prevails over general)
State v. Gerdes, 252 N.W.2d 335 (S.D. 1977) (legislative/policy recognition that high BAC drivers are a public safety menace)