State v. Johnsen, 918 N.W.2d 876

On Oct. 1, 2016, Shane Johnsen drove a grain truck hauling newly harvested soybeans over a bridge posted for a 33-ton (66,000 lb) limit; the truck weighed 87,000 lbs.
Highway patrol issued a ticket for violating the posted bridge weight limit (SDCL 32-22-48) and a notice to appear in court; truck owner/employer was Johnsen’s brother.
Initial court date (Nov. 22, 2016) was canceled; Johnsen’s first appearance before a judicial officer occurred at a motions hearing on July 10, 2017.
Johnsen asserted a harvesting exemption (SDCL 32-22-42.2) that allows a 10% tolerance for newly harvested grain hauled to first unloading, requested a jury trial, and later moved to dismiss under the 180-day rule (SDCL 23A-44-5.1).
The circuit court rejected the harvesting-exemption claim, denied a jury trial (after assuring no jail would be imposed), and denied dismissal under the 180-day rule; Johnsen was convicted and fined criminally and civilly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnsen)	Held
Whether the harvesting exemption (SDCL 32-22-42.2) exempts vehicles from posted bridge weight limits (SDCL 32-22-47/48)	Bridge-specific statutes control; permitting exemption would frustrate bridge protection and be absurd	Exemption lacks an express exception for bridges; absence of bridge-language means exemption should apply to bridges	Exemption does not apply to posted bridge limits; SDCL 32-22-42.2 is limited to violations of the general highway limits (32-22-16/21) and cannot override bridge statutes; conviction affirmed
Whether Johnsen was entitled to a jury trial on the overweight offense	N/A (State opposed jury)	A civil penalty of $15,750 is onerous and warrants jury trial despite no jail exposure	Denial of jury trial upheld because court assured no jail would be imposed and precedent permits denying jury when only potential jail is ≤6 months and court gives assurance
Whether dismissal was required under the 180-day rule (SDCL 23A-44-5.1) because initial court date was canceled	Time to bring to trial begins when defendant first appears before a judicial officer; Johnsen did not appear until July 10, 2017	Time should have begun on Oct. 1, 2016 (date of ticket) because initial scheduled appearance was canceled through no fault of defendant	Denial of dismissal affirmed; 180-day clock does not start at issuance of ticket—starts when defendant appears before a judicial officer

Expungement of Oliver, 810 N.W.2d 350 (2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
I–90 Truck Haven Serv., Inc., 662 N.W.2d 288 (2003) (use statute-as-a-whole and related enactments to ascertain intent)
Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor Advert., Inc., 853 N.W.2d 878 (2014) (presume legislature did not intend absurd results when construing statutes together)
State v. Geise, 656 N.W.2d 30 (2002) (overweight provisions protect roads and public safety)
State v. Barton, 625 N.W.2d 275 (2001) (a jury request may be denied where offense carries ≤6 months jail and court assures no jail will be imposed)
State v. Duncan, 895 N.W.2d 779 (2017) (180-day period begins when defendant appears before a judicial officer)