 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cameron6/16/1999
State v. Cameron, 1999 SD 70
SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
State v. Cameron, 1999 SD 70
HTML Code © State Bar of South Dakota, 1999
South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from the First Judicial Circuit, Union County, SD Hon. Richard Bogue, Judge
Reversed
Argued Mar 24, 1999; Opinion Filed Jun 16, 1999
[ ] State appeals trial court's order dismissing with prejudice an indictment charging Eric J. Cameron with hit and run resulting in death or injury in violation of SDCL 32-34-3 and 32-34-5, a Class 6 felony. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
[ ] On April 5, 1998, Cameron's vehicle was involved in a one-vehicle accident. Cameron lost control of his vehicle when he attempted to exit Interstate Highway 29 to North Sioux City. The vehicle rolled multiple times. At the time of the accident, there were two passengers in Cameron's vehicle. Once the vehicle came to rest, Cameron abandoned the vehicle and his injured passengers and fled the scene of the accident.
[ ] Both parties stipulated that the accident involved one vehicle, there were no pedestrians involved, and that the two passengers were severely injured.
[ ] Cameron was indicted by a grand jury. The indictment stated:
"That on or about the 5th day of April, 1998, in the County of Union, South Dakota, Eric J. Cameron did commit the public offense of HIT AND RUN RESULTING IN DEATH OR INJURY contrary to SDCL 32-34-5 and SDCL 32-34-3, in that the defendant was involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to any person, who fails to immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident and comply with the provisions of SDCL 32-34-3, and for that reason is guilty of a Class 6 felony, contrary to statute in such case made and provided against the peace and dignity of the State of South Dakota."
[ ] The trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice on the grounds that the statute Cameron was charged under is inapplicable to an accident involving only one vehicle and no pedestrians. The court determined, as a matter of law, that SDCL 32-34-5 and 32-34-3 apply to accidents involving either two vehicles, or one vehicle and at least one pedestrian.
[ ] State appeals, raising the following issues:
"1. Whether the circuit court had authority to dismiss the indictment based on either its interpretation of the statute or on its belief that the State could not present sufficient evidence; in the alternative, whether the court had authority to dismiss the case with prejudice."
"2. Whether the circuit court erred in holding that, pursuant to SDCL 32-34-3, a driver of a vehicle involved in a single-car accident has no duty to render reasonable assistance to persons injured in such an accident, instead that obligation arises only when a second car or a pedestrian is involved in the accident."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Whether the trial court had authority under SDCL 23A-8-2 to dismiss an indictment presents a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, § 4, 570 NW2d 39, 40; Kern v. City of Sioux Falls, 1997 SD 19, § 4, 560 NW2d 236, 237; Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'n, 514 NW2d 693, 695 (SD 1994). Likewise, questions involving statutory construction are reviewed de novo. West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington County, 1996 SD 70, § 6, 549 NW2d 683, 685; Johnson, 514 NW2d at 695.
DECISION
[ ] 1. Whether trial court had authority to dismiss indictment.
[ ] SDCL 23A-8-2 provides nine grounds for the dismissal of an indictment or information:
<
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|