State v. Paulson
2015 SD 12
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Paulson appeals his jury convictions for threatening a judicial officer, offering a false instrument for filing, and uttering simulated process arising from his 2008–2009 foreclosure filings and a 2013 Seventh Amendment Jury document.
- Judge Portra received Paulson’s materials; DCI uncovered a memorandum and related documents on Paulson’s computer.
- Superseding indictment issued September 20, 2013; trial occurred February 10, 2014; jury found guilt on all counts.
- Circuit court denied motion to dismiss on separation-of-powers and venue grounds; Paulson was sentenced with suspended execution conditioned on prohibitions on filings not pre-cleared.
- Paulson’s counsel attempted to withdraw; court filtered his pro se arguments through a Korth brief, with some Section A noncompliance but Section B adherence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of facts to convict for threatening a judicial officer | Paulson argues insufficient facts support conviction | Paulson claims no real threat by Seventh Amendment Jury memo | No, evidence supports threat |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false instrument filing | Paulson asserts no valid false instrument | Order from Seventh Amendment Jury was invalid and void | No, evidence shows false instrument |
| Sufficiency of evidence for uttering simulated process | Paulson contends no simulated process | Document mimicked official process to obtain relief | No, order simulated court process; sufficient to convict |
Key Cases Cited
- Arabie v. State, 2003 S.D. 57 (2003) (Korth procedure limitations on non-meritorious issues; Section A issues not compliant)
- Bousum v. State, 2003 S.D. 58 (2003) (Remedies for Korth procedural defects; refiling guidance)
- Korth v. State, 2002 S.D. 101 (2002) (Foundation of Korth brief procedure)
- State v. Brim, 2010 S.D. 74 (2010) (Suffs review de novo for judgment of acquittal; standard of review)
- State v. Klaudt, 2009 S.D. 71 (2009) (Sufficiency review framework; de novo standard)
- State v. Janklow, 2005 S.D. 25 (2005) (Evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (No authority to override federal constitutional orders in civil context)