 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cameron6/16/1999
BR>
"(1) When it is not found, endorsed and presented or filed as prescribed by this title;"
"(2) When the names of the witnesses are not inserted at the foot of the indictment or information or endorsed thereon;"
"(3) When it does not substantially conform to the requirements of this title;"
"(4) When more than one offense is charged in a single count;"
"(5) When it does not describe a public offense;"
"(6) When it contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense charged, or other bar to the prosecution;"
"(7) When the grand jury which filed the indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged because it was not within the jurisdiction of the grand jury or because the court was without jurisdiction of the offense charged;"
"(8) When a person was permitted to be present during the session of the grand jury while the charge embraced in the indictment was under consideration, except as provided in §23A-5-11; or"
"(9) When a defendant charged by information did not have or waive a preliminary hearing before the information was filed."
[ ] The circuit court dismissed the indictment without specifying the statutory basis upon which the motion was granted. This Court has previously stated that, " ecause these statutory grounds are exclusive" where the circuit court dismisses an indictment without specifying the statutory basis upon which the motion was granted, the order dismissing the indictment is reversible. Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, § 8, 570 NW2d at 41; State v. Dorhout, 513 NW2d 390, 392 (SD 1994) (citing State v. Bingen, 326 NW2d 99, 100 (SD 1982)). Consequently, the order is subject to reversal for this reason alone. Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, § 8, 570 NW2d at 41.
[ ] Notwithstanding the trial court's failure to specify the statutory basis for dismissing the indictment, the trial court also impermissibly considered the facts of the case in making its decision to dismiss. This Court has held that the trial court cannot "inquire into the legality or sufficiency of the evidence upon which an indictment is based when considering a dismissal under SDCL 23A-8-2." Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, § 8, 570 NW2d at 41; State v. Bale, 512 NW2d 164, 167 (SD 1994) (Wuest, J., Concurring in result); State v. Schladweiler, 436 NW2d 851, 854 (SD 1989). See also Bingen, 326 NW2d at 100; State v. Hoekstra, 286 NW2d 127, 128 (SD 1979). "An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits." Hoekstra, 286 NW2d at 128 (citing Costello v. United States, 350 US 359, 76 SCt 406, 100 LEd 397 (1956)). The trial court impermissibly considered facts upon which the indictment was based to arrive at the Conclusion the facts did not constitute the crime charged. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a trial on the merits.
[ ] 2. Whether SDCL 32-34-5 and 32-34-3 apply only to accidents involving two or more vehicles or a vehicle and pedestrian.
[ ] The trial court concluded that SDCL 32-34-3 and 32-34-5 apply to accidents which include either two vehicles, or at least one vehicle and one pedestrian; but are inapplicable under the language of the statute to a single-car accident.
[ ] SDCL 32-34-3 provides:
"The driver of any vehicle involved in any accident resulting in injury or death to any person or damage to property shall immediately stop and give his name and address, and the name and address of the owner and the license number of the vehic
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.
|
|