*1 result). SABERS, (concurring in Justice I concur II III. concur
I on issues the admis-
result on issue because personal property
sion this stolen on the
proper though even not listed search Albright’s and con-
warrant. statements goods pointing to the
duct out the stolen right
officers constituted a waiver
object to statements and evidence obtained Janis, search. to the
pursuant (S.D.1982). Signe
Elston SHAMBURGER
Shamburger, Plaintiffs
Appellees, BEHRENS,
Clayton L. Defendant Appellant.
No. 15505.
Supreme Dakota. Court of South
Argued May 1987.
Decided Jan.
Bushnell, Rapid City, and for defendant appellant.
SABERS, (on reassignment). Justice malpractice This medical case before Sham this court for the second time. Behrens, (S.D. burger v. 380 N.W.2d 1986), jury we reversed a verdict favor (Behrens) Clayton L. of Dr. Behrens jury trial because a remanded new physi good on error instruction faith improper. cian was The second trial concluded with a Shamburger Signe for Elston verdict (Shamburgers) appeals. which Behrens now timely the verdict filed mo- After Behrens judgment tions for a new trial notwith- standing the verdict. These motions were for denied. Later Behrens filed a motion judgment al- relief from based leged juror This motion was misconduct. appeals denied. from these also Behrens denying requested relief. We orders affirm.
Facts upcom- May preparation for County, clerk Pennington trials in courts sent out a “Personal Information R. prospective jurors. James Form” one, out, (Curtis), filled it Curtis received it to and returned the clerk. prospec- The clerk summoned Curtis nothing ap- tive for this trial since peared returned form which would him a disqualify Curtis was seat- in the participated ed on in a verdict deliberations which resulted Shamburgers. favorable to The vote two; jury was ten to was one of the Curtis ten. July returned the verdict on judg- the trial
1986 and court entered its July denying a ment on 1986. The order notwithstanding new trial and 7,1986. August the verdict were entered on Shultz, Jackson, R. Lynn, Donald Twenty days Shultz later Donald R. P.C., Lebrun, City, Rapid Shultz & (Shultz), Shamburgers’ attorney, received plaintiffs appellees. following Cur- handwritten letter from Braun, William G. Lonnie R. Porter and tis: Costello, Hill, Porter, Heisterkamp & 3)James
8-26-86 been involved in oth- litigation er in Pennington County par- Donald R. Shultz ticularly a foreclosure contract P.O. Box proceeding deed in 1984. Rapid City, SD 57709 Dear Mr. Shultz: your against As case Dr. 1. WAIVER *3 Behrens, Clayton you I commend undisputed It is that Curtis was not
job I that it not be well done. trust will questioned qualifications during about his appealed! Although voir dire. no record was made However, felony I on have a conviction portion trial, that the parties the agree just my which ammu- record could the point. this anyone on The earliest knew nition that Mr. Porter and his firm needs potential problem the was when re Shultz appeal. to an file such ceived the August 1986 letter. Sham- revealed, If were this information burgers argue that Behrens’ failure to ob along how instrumental I in the with was ject question or even prior Curtis about large verdict and the dollar amount felony convictions voir dire consti awarded, appeal certainly an right tutes waiver of his complain. to now made. you prevent situation, If wish to this argument The this depends basis of upon feel withholding information is personal the function of the information your percentage worth a fee similar to Shamburgers position form. take the you charged your what clients. question Behrens had to the prospective go again, If this case were trial rely upon question- and could not the your winning chances of it a second time Anything less, contend, they naire. is a “slim would be to none”! waiver. Sincerely, personal After the information form was /s/ R. James Curtis clerk, received there and was noth- Acting responsible and dis- ethical on which form the clerk dis- could patch, judge Shultz contacted who in Curtis, disqualify cern would in- basic turn the Pennington County called sheriff. litigants. formation was shared with the A meeting arranged was between Shultz practice This is a common within this state. and Curtis Shultz’ office. The con- law may vary While the form frоm circuit versation parties taped. between the circuit, the use these forms has become $30,000 Curtis’ demand for was refused. process. a basic selection $1,000 eventually He left with in marked purpose The these is forms to shorten office, bills. As Curtis left Shultz’ he was required time for selection. It charged arrested. He was subsequently attorneys bypass allows routine grand and convicted theft threat name, children, questioning age, about sentenced a term in penitentia- the state spouse’s employment questions and to ask ry- dealing pertinent with the issues at trial. learning After of Curtis’ extortion ma- personal information forms are not neuver, Behrens moved for relief from and were not intended to bе substitute 15-6-60(b). under SDCL dire, merely voir aid but tool to motion based upon extor- Nevertheless, efficiency. personal attempt, subsequent tion but findings also information form sent that: to Curtis contained a potential asking jurors section to inform 1) James Curtis’ name real was James they if disqualified the court were Svihovec; Curtis duty reasons, for any one of several includ- 2) Curtis James was convicted under the ing “convicted felon not restored to civil name Svihovec of mail fraud in Oma- ha, rights.” mistake, 31, 1978, through Either May misun- Nebraska intent, derstanding year received five did sentence most of Curtis not mark spent probation; appropriate speculation box. It that a South Dakota felon to his surd to rule information the correct assert rights by statutorily been restored his civil name would former status qualified probation is a completion Reliance of his through voir dire. revealed informa- personal juror, a federal felon who given in the whereas the answers qualified dire both given completed probation in voir was not a those form and tion honesty capability jury.” To sitting on a South Dakota depend upon disqualified that a federal felon potential hold that his civil a demonstration juror absent giv- upon the answers reliance Behrens’ places an unrea- been restored status has information personal in the en system. on the To hold burden sonable failure to not unreasonable form was сan lack of such a demonstration that the felony prior convic- about question Curtis could an otherwise valid verdict invalidate a waiver. State operate as did not tions be disastrous. (S.D.1986). 396 N.W.2d Delfs, person We hold that *4 QUALIFICATIONS 2. JUROR felony federal law is of a under convicted of mail fraud convicted Curtis was Juror juror automatically disqualified as a not (1982). He 1341 in 1978 under 18 U.S.C. § 16-13-10 where circumstances under SDCL days prison and thirty in was sentenced jur- longer no under the demonstrate he is years, four eleven probation for placed on of the federal criminal isdiction or control he was no time of this trial At the months. Likewise, not juror Curtis was system. because, apparently, probation longer on juror because involvement disqualified passed. date had probation termination his litigation not constitute cause prior in does 16-13-10. disqualification under SDCL petit qualifications The 16-13-10: generally found at SDCL are jurors. Qualifications All citizens of 3. RELIEF FROM THE VERDICT state, and registered to vote this JURY BASED UPON read, are able to mind and who of sound MISCONDUCT write, English lan understand the letter sur Shortly after the Curtis justices or clerks of the guage, and not faced, requested from the relief Behrens judge of the circuit Supreme Court or a denied the mo judgment. The trial court States, any court of United court or there was doing in so found that tion and jurisdiction, li limited or or a court of upon influence or extrinsic no intrinsic clergymen as de attorneys, or censed verdict; jury not that the when service in 19-13-16 fined § by juror tampered or influenced Cur religious with their beliefs conflicts tis; showing any there was no any not been convicted who have verdict effect on the substantial restored to their civil
felony unless Curtis, post-verdict that to allow the subject to disabil who are not rights and letter to suggested by Curtis’ innuendos any ity by the commission of offense his jury verdict would allow set aside the or by special provision of law does give an unac to be condoned threat them, disqualify are and shall be shall jury verdict. This ceptable taint to the grand competent persons to serve on all reasoning by the trial court. solid re petit juries within their counties spectively. (emphasis person seеking A a new trial on alleged juror misconduct grounds Shamburgers argue that SDCL 16-13-10 in trial court to show persons has the burden exclude from service does not materially alleged af that the misconduct of federal felonies previously convicted rights. Carpenter v. probation parole. his substantial longer or fected who are Co., 151, 290 N.W. Baking 67 S.D. argues that it does and Union Behrens (1940). used assuming standard to be disqualified. Even Curtis correct, reviewing ruling is that the Shamburgers’ the trial court’s position is Behrens’ position court is the best to evaluate argument sense: “it would be ab- makes (Rule 606(b)) or testimony prohib- evidence of undisclosed Juror’s the relevance process Excep- ited as to impact their deliberаtive later facts and discovered — improper tion for influence—Affidavits The trial trial. court’s outcome Except and statements. as otherwise for relief from denial of Behrens’ motion statute, provided by upon an into inquiry an for either is reversible validity indictment, of a verdict or error or clear of law abuse of discretion juror may testify any as to or matter the exercise of its discretion. State occurring during statement the course of 716-718, 681, Wyss, 124 Wis.2d jury’s deliberations or to the effect of (1985); McDonough Equip- Power anything upon any his juror’s or ment, Greenwood, 464 U.S. Inc. mind influencing or emotions as him to 845, 849, 78 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. assent from the dissent verdict or (1984). concerning pro- indictment his mental proof case Behrens’ failеd therewith, cesses except connection by juror against Beh- any show bias juror may testify question that a on the upon Delfs, supra, rens. Behrens’ reliance prejudicial whether extraneous infor- jurors’ because there mis- excessive improperly mation was brought to the (failure prior in a conduct disclose DWIs jury’s attention or whether outside trial) specifically prejudicial DWI improperly brought influence position. and the any juror. State’s bear Nor affi- held failed to davit evidence of trial court Behrens establish statement concerning him materially matter about which affected Beh- Curtis’ misconduct *5 precluded be testifying from be rights. rens’ He failed to show substantial purposes, rеceived for these (emphasis jury the Curtis’ misconduct affected ver- dict, offering only speculation sheer might conjecture as to what have SDCL 19-14-7 seeks to reach an juror’s moving party the mind. policies designed accommodation between showing alleged safeguard the of burden the miscon- to the institution of by trial materially policies designed just duct affected his substantial to insure a result in individual eases. The rule rights. is a to was drafted There failure sustain that incompetency barring as a rule of juror proof burden this case. motives, testifying methods, from as to or claims Behrens that the sheriff’s inter- processes by mental which he reached his view Curtis’ extortion interview with ¶ 606[03], 3 verdict. Weinstein’s Evidence suggеst Shamburgers counsel for Curtis’ [04], prohibit operates This rule to testi extortion idea was formulated before the mony concerning certain conduct the verdict reached. As indicated coun- jurors which has no verifiable outward sel, suggestion “bootstrapped” is then manifestations. Extrinsic are influences into planted seeds disaster competent juror admissible and a is testi to setting stage depriving the before fy irregularities intoxication, to as such a fair adjudication. Behrens of Behrens exposure threats, bribes, acceptance to urges proper the extortion letter is possession knowledge relevant the prejudice evidence of Curtis’ deceit through facts in issuе not obtained the jury’s ap- the verdict. overlooks This the acquired prior introduction of but evidence plicable statutory requirements law on im- trial, experiments, investigations, news peachment of a verdict. media, etc. Id. statutory impeachment basis for aof It is settled law in South Dakota that verdict claimed misconduct of extrinsic, intrinsic, opposed to as infor juror testimony juror from is based may impeach mation used 19-14-7, (Rule governed 606(b) by SDCL Pennington County verdict. Duncan v. Evidence), the Rules (S.D. Federal which re- Housing Authority, N.W.2d 546 283 quires (S.D. in- opposed 1979); Luna, extrinsic as to intrinsic N.W.2d State v. 378 229 1985); terference the deliberations: 167 Finney, State v. N.W.2d juror at 1170. If there were no rule of (S.D.1983); Gallegos, incompetency, testimоnial the secret (S.D.1982). thought juror power of one would have the ground for a A motion common express to disturb the conclusions jury, or members of is that the new trial jury as a whole. For Id. this reason it, ex- performed in the fashion has not impeachment courts insisted that ground juries. Attacks on this pected of proof be limited to overt acts which are because, will abortive frequently are knowledge ju- susceptible to the other seen, circumstances under which juror’s rors. The court stated that testify im- jurors may themselves beyond pro- go not the mental actions did very limited. peach verdict juror competent cess of the and were not impeach evidence to and thus the verdict juror may rule that a testi- The correct upheld. Id. prejudicial whether extraneous fy about recently As noted Tanner v. United brought improperly information States, -, 483 U.S. S.Ct. or out- jury’s attention whether (1987), L.Ed.2d 90 liberalization brought to improperly side influence was incompetency sys- rule would weaken juror may A not upon any bear tem, improve not it. made testify about statements post-verdict There is little doubt that nor jury’s course of the deliberation investigation into misconduct would anything testify the effect of about in some instances lead the invalidation juror’s upon his or mind irresponsible of verdicts reached after influencing him to assent to emotions as improper juror at behavior. It all processes verdict or about mental clear, however, jury system with the verdict. in connection perfect could survive such efforts it. Wright A. Miller 11 C. & Federal Practice misconduct, Allegations oí juror incom- Procedure, Finney, supra § inattentiveness, petency, or raised for special concurring opinion, Jus- in a weeks, days, first time months emphasized evi- tice Wollman the intrinsic seriously disrupt after the verdict *6 rule, stating in close dence exclusion “ finality (emphasis process, of the add- cases, ‘to err the side of it is better ed). receipt rather than of evi- exclusion [such] ” Tanner, at -, supra, 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. dence.’ 106. 97 L.Ed.2d at any point evi Behrens fails simply proof There is in this record pre-verdict improper preju bias or dence of juror improper Curtis’ conduct and by juror dice claimed evidence Curtis. fact, plan any had effect the verdict. thought processes must be ex of Curtis’ proof plan there is no that his to extort it cluded because was extraneous infor money was even conceived before he wrote brought any juror’s mation attention. letter, eight which was weeks after the possible Any prejudice or bias evidence, jury verdict. Under this there is have had deliberations were nothing attempt to show that his extortion process an his own mental and not anything poorly more than a conceived Thus, post-trial extraneous influence. afterthought. The trial court affirmed claiming prejudice his bias or evidence simply proof because there is no in this must be excluded. improper record that Curtis’ conduct F.2d 1166 Eagle, United States had effect whatsoever on the verdict. (8th Cir.1976), court stated central yet We affirm for another reason. As purpose juror testimony of the rule of by stated the trial court: competency prevention is “[T]he of fraud by attempted manipulation by Mr. jurors individual who could remain supported silent deliberations and later as- Curtis cannot condoned they by were improp- sert that and indeed to this to be set aside allow influenced (emphasis simply er Id. him considerations.” subse- on those assertions quent condoning to the tive care vеrdict and that Behrens failed to meet degree to some conduct would be this standard. creating subsequent an inference taint instructions, In settling the the trial accepted to a verdict which should not be applicable legal court determined that the by this Court. measuring standard of care for Behrens’ words, attempt In other if an at extortion is actions should be a national standard of verdict, allowed vacate a valid then Over objection care. Behrens’ the follow- promote and
we
reward the extortion at-
given:
instruction
tempt
exposing
punishing
rather than
July
it. The
verdict was reached on
Instruction
containing
1986. The letter
extortion
threat
months
was received almost twо
la-
In determining whether the Defendant
ter, August 27,
juror’s
1986. While the
negligent, you
are instructed that
reprehensible
after
conduct
the trial was
duty
Defendant has the
to have that
conviction,
and has resulted in a criminal
degree
learning
ordinarily pos-
skill
correctly
the trial court
held it
nowas
basis
sessed by board-certified surgeons of
clearly
for a new trial. Behrens has
failed
good standing engaged in the same field
error in the court’s
establish reversible
specialization
in the United
un-
States
ruling.
If he could sustain his burden of
der same or similar circumstances.
proof
he
prejudiced,
that was
then and
It
duty
is his further
to use
de-
then
the jury
should
verdict be vacated.
gree
ordinarily
of skill
exercised in like
proof
In the absence of
that the extortion
cases
good
board-certified members in
plan
an
extrinsic causal connection
standing
profession
of his
who are en-
verdict,
with the
deliberations or
we
gaged in
specialization
the same field of
affirm.
in the
diligent
United States and to be
an
accomplish
effort
the purpose
4. NATIONAL STANDARD
CARE
OF
employed.
he is
Dr.
Behrens
certified
judge
You
perform-
will
Defendant’s
Surgery
American Board
and is Fellow
ance in accordance with the
standard
College
of Surgery.
American
He
applicable
care
to him of
graduat
been certified since 1954.
time
He
complained
ed from medical
events
April
school
1943. After two
of which is
service,
years military
pathology
resi
through May
dency
general practice
and some
in eastern
apply
These
pre-operative
duties
Dakota,
completed
South
another resi
post-operative
care and
care. The failure
dency in surgery
then
came to the
*7
perform
to
negligence.
these
is
duties
City
Rapid
area where he
practiced
his
In analyzing
applicable
of
standard
profession and had contact with Shambur-
Dakota,
care South
we note that
v.
Block
ger.
469,
80
McVay,
(1964)
S.D.
gence in this
experts.
negligence
as the norm which
medical
conduct
be furnished
be tested.
have brushed
should
We
126
at 811-812.
N.W.2d
arguments
many
these same
aside
8,
Knutson,
12
271 N.W.2d
Fjerstad v.
with the skill
be exercised
connection
hospital
phy-
(S.D.1978),
involved both
attending
patient,
by a doctor in
stated that:
negligence and
sician
compelled
long
him to abide
and we have
expect
right
a
that
had
Decedent
good practice
followed
by the rules
hospital
a
treatment rendered
under similar circumstances.
generally
emergency
an
room
and staffs
maintains
omitted.)
added.)
(Citations
(Emphasis
with that avail-
would be commensurate
not a law. under Missouri otherwise, holding Supreme Missouri Court stated: JUROR CURTIS DID NOT NECESSAR- further The State contends a convic- QUALIFICA- ILY THE POSSESS disqualifi- tion in a federal court is not a BE TIONS TO SEATED AAS JUROR 496.100, applicable St. cation. Sec. IN THIS CASE. County, provides: Louis “None qualifications petit of a permitted following persons shall be * * * (5) *9 generally found at Any person SDCL 16-13-10 jurors: wherein serve as it is felony”. stated: has of a who been convicted rights Sartorious, to the full of a citi- been restored rel. Barrett ex parole If a is on at the time zen. convict 149 A.L.R. 175 S.W.2d Mo. discharge, the eligible for he becomes held that such broad [1943], we certificate, like shall issue a any limitation warden without stated language shall due notice that such con- voting be one who
disqualified from rights restored to the full in a has been felony a federal vict been convicted discharged pri- Any convict given there- of a citizen. Certainly the reasons court. July 1, of the time of 1965 shall as or to applicable here. There even in are discharge, restored be considered greater for such a conviction be- reason The rights citizenship. full a to the disqualification of a than a hereby issue provides that warden authorized to 494.010 voter because Sec. and intelli- certificate to such be “sober ex-convicts. every juror shall * * * and gent, good reputation other- copy shall The warden mail Certainly a qualified.” conviction wise the clerk of court for the certificate to felony county has in a federal court some convict sen- from which the bearing on matters. added) these (Underlining tenced. p. 619. Id. at 24-5-2 SDCL civil plaintiffs claim that Curtis’s The statutory provisions are Neither these rights to him he was were restored when presented by this applicable to the facts disсharged probation. from federal As appeal. The first statute and the whole of they two for such claim cite statutes: basis SDCL 23A-27 deal with convictions in the of this state. It imprisonment A state sentences issued courts sentence of penitentiary im- any suspends begins phrase: this “A sentence of term vote, prisonment penitentiary right person so in the state ...” of a sentenced office, peni- must to become a candidate which mean South Dakota public hold jury, tentiary. true for the sec- public and to serve on a The same holds office pri- is the warden of public offices and all ond statute wherein it and forfeits all trusts, authority power during penitentiary who issues a South Dakota’s vate imprisonment. Any restoring his civil term of such certificate to an inmate serving any upon discharge. a bold person rights who is a term in It be proposition to two penitentiary competent legal shall be a witness hold these particularized dealing in any pending action now or hereafter statutes with .in- state, and convicted commenced in the courts of mates felons sentenced deposition may taken in the under the criminal of South Dakota and his be laws rights prescribed by applicable to restore civil to fel- same manner statute taking depositions. relating legally ons convicted under other distinct rule pursuant systems, suspension of sentence criminal herein the fedеral After a 23A-27-18, government. the termination of § original the time sentence or argue plaintiffs that individuals court, by order of the time extended sys- been convicted under a criminal rights withheld this sec- defendant’s tem other than South Dakota’s would have (Underlining are restored. tion right jury. a more restricted to serve on a 23A-27-35. SDCL To answer this claim should noted it service, restricting Whenever convict has been dis- that a classification constitutionally charged provisions permitted under the of 24-5-1 to non-felons is a § discharge See, e.g., Superior he shall at the time of his Rubio classification. rights Court, Cal.Rptr. full considered as restored to the Cal.3d citizenship. (1979). importantly, At the time of the dis- But more P.2d 595 absolutely charge рrovi- convict under the Dakota’s statutes do South serving chapter, sions of this he shall receive felon from ever forbid a right such so is restricted until the from the warden certificate and to do person’s rights is a certificate due civil are restored. It shall be notice *10 being preserve with the error on is qualified usually limitation burden voir dire the counsel, challenged duty person exception: the to demonstrate noted in this upon civil restoration to this status. his exception An is this made to rule so that ‘where it is shown that matters which Thus, person who has been convicted might prejudice establish or work a dis- felony under law is excludable as federal qualification actually gone were into оn juror 16-13-10 under SDCL unless dire, voir given, false answers were he re- person can demonstrate has been deception practiced, otherwise the rights. to his Because there stored civil permitted court will be to consider the no civil was demonstration Curtis’s trial, question on the motion for new rights under had been restored the federal upon testimony either oral taken at a potentially as a system, he was excludable motion, hearing by affidavits’; on the ‘the closely because situation is akin to newly sought that when a new trial is evidence; the complaining discovered party not to remedy be left without a BY THE TRIAL COURT ERRORED objection for the want of prior FAILING TO THE DEFEND- GRANT exception, disqualification when the ANT’S FOR RELIEF FROM MOTION jurоr the by was one which due dil- THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON igence could not have learned sooner. JURY MISCONDUCT. (Citations omitted) surfaced, Shortly after Curtis letter find from We herein record there requested the defendant relief from deception was such concealment and judgment. court The trial denied the mo- juror as to Michel make this (1) doing in tion and so held that there was ease; exception applicable in this and we no intrinsic or extrinsic influence Curtis must this prejudicial hold was to defend- and, (2) jury; upon the there no evi- ant for the in reasons stated the above- tam- dence conclude that added) cited cases. (Underlining pered with Curtis. concluding In the court stated reason agree majority implicit required this ruling that Behren’s because: during juror demonstration of misconduct ... entitled this in- [Defendant deliberations falls short of the standard formation, determining jurors required by 19-14-7. SDCL There using peremptory strike chal- showing extrinsic regardless interferenc- lenges, of whether or not it during es occurred disqualification. deliberations. to an amounted absolute But, appeal wholly this does not center Therefore, herein must be alleged around Curtis’s influence (Underlining reversed. members. misconduct of McDonough Equipment Power prior kind Curtis exhibited Greenwood, 464 U.S. 104 S.Ct. during jury is not selection reviewed (1984),prospective jurors L.Ed.2d 663 were 19-14-7. appeal standards SDCL This questioned topic injuries specifi- on the juror involves misconduct cally whether of thеir imme- members deliberation, but it also involves the issue family diate had ever sustained severe of whether should al- have been injuries a prolonged suffered for participate lowed in the decision. And it period of time. One who remained is this fails majority distinction which the question silent to this was seated to address. After member. the verdict it was discover- request particular for relief under ed defendant’s that this had failed to 15-6-60(b) respond taken. In discuss- SDCL is well and a new trial was appropriately Hermann, supra topic reversing ordered. the order for a new Supreme Court, trial, Supreme after the Missouri Court held that under duty question (the 15-6-61) recognizing and Rule same that the as SDCL *11 (1) party must first trial a new obtain a failed prospective that a Dependency Ne- demonstrate In the Matter question on material honestly K.A.H., to answer glect N.A.H. and Con- (2) correct dire; show that a then voir cerning Their M.A.H. and R.W. Parents provided a valid basis response would No. 15750. challenge for cause. for new for a motion The defendant’s Dakota. Supreme Court of South First, meets criteria Greenwood. Sept. question. on Briefs a material Considered to answer Curtis failed fraud, mail a crime prior conviction His 20, 1988. Decided Jan. bearing upon his dishonesty, had a direct juror. Under our state qualifications difference whether
procedure it makes no question- was answered question dire. A by way answer in voir
naire or question answer to material
dishonest adequate. circumstances is under either Wyss,
See, Delfs, suрra; State (1985). 370 N.W.2d Wis.2d in his failure fill dishonest
Was Curtis top the form
out the form? fill sides.
required him to read and out both He fill the reverse side.
He not out did He failed to use his true name.
failed to Pennington litigation
mention his convic-
County. He failed to mention attempted He to ex-
tion mail fraud. for attorney. money prevailing
tort from bench- honesty short of the falls
Curtis’s
mark.
Next, if the state of affairs were true
known, have had a the defendant would 15-14-
challenge for Under SDCL cause.
6(1) challenged for cause qualify. he does not As Curtis
because potentially of his qualified not because law, federal
felony conviction under challenged. It is re-
could have been court quired in Greenwood Bangs, McCullen, F. Mark Marshall challenge have been convincedthat would Butler, Simmons, Foye Rapid City, & required that the chal- exercised. It is M.A.H. lenge for cause exist. Brown, K. Brown of Morrill & Portia ruling trial court’s reverse the Rapid City, for and K.A.H. N.A.H. to the lower proceedings and remand court new trial. Gen., Roger Atty. Tellinghuisen, A. MILLER, I am authorized to state that Asst; Godtland, Gen., Pierre, Atty. Janice J., joins concurring and dissent- appellee, State of S.D. part.
PER CURIAM. (Mother) disposi- appeals from a
M.A.H. parental which terminated her tional order (Father) to their rights of R.W. and those