857 N.W.2d 880
S.D.2014Background
- In 2013 Nicole Mundy-Geidd was arrested and convicted in magistrate court for DUI under SDCL 32-23-1; the circuit court affirmed.
- Mundy-Geidd argued SDCL 34-20A-93 (enacted 1974) prohibited enforcing statutes that list “drinking, drunkenness, or being found in an intoxicated condition” as an element, and that repeal of SDCL 34-20A-95 in 2012 removed a carve-out that had expressly exempted DUI.
- Her position: because SDCL 32-23-1 includes an “under the influence” element and a .08 BAC element, the State could not prosecute DUI while 34-20A-93 was in force (until its repeal in 2014).
- The State argued the 1974 Act decriminalized public intoxication and provided treatment, not an intent to bar DUI prosecutions; the 2012 repeal targeted outdated behavioral-health statutes and did not intend to nullify DUI or related public-safety laws.
- The court found the statutory language ambiguous, considered legislative history and contemporaneous enactments, and rejected Mundy-Geidd’s interpretation as leading to absurd results and an implied repeal of many public-safety statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 34-20A-93 (as in effect before repeal) prohibited enforcement of SDCL 32-23-1 (DUI) in 2013 | Mundy-Geidd: 34-20A-93 bars enforcement of laws whose elements include drinking/drunkenness; repeal of the explicit DUI exception (34-20A-95) in 2012 means DUI prosecutions were barred | State: 1974 Act intended to decriminalize public intoxication and provide treatment, not to eliminate DUI; 2012 repeal targeted behavioral-health statutes, not public-safety laws; literal reading yields absurd results | Court: Rejected Mundy-Geidd. Ambiguity resolved by legislative history and context; legislature did not intend to bar DUI enforcement; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bostick v. Weber, 692 N.W.2d 517 (S.D. 2005) (statutory interpretation seeks legislative intent)
- State v. Myrl & Roy’s Paving, Inc., 686 N.W.2d 651 (S.D. 2004) (presume legislature did not intend absurd results when construing statutes together)
- Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984) (definition of ambiguity in statutory language)
- State v. Mastellar, 198 N.W.2d 503 (S.D. 1972) (explaining “under the influence” need not mean intoxicated or drunk)
- Faircloth v. Raven Indus., Inc., 620 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 2000) (repeal by implication is disfavored)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (principle against repeal by implication)