Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Mundy-Geidd

Supreme Court of South Dakota

December 23, 2014

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
NICOLE MUNDY-GEIDD, Defendant and Appellant

Argued November 18, 2014

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CHARLES MIX COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. THE HONORABLE BRUCE V. ANDERSON Judge.

MARTY J. JACKLEY, Attorney General, JEFFREY P. HALLEM, Deputy Attorney General, KELLY MARNETTE, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

TIMOTHY R. WHALEN, Lake Andes, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appellant.

ZINTER, Justice. GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, SEVERSON, and WILBUR, Justices, concur.

OPINION

Page 881

ZINTER, Justice

[¶1] Nicole Mundy-Geidd was convicted of driving under the influence of

Page 882

alcohol (DUI) in 2013. She appeals, arguing that enforcement of the DUI statute (SDCL 32-23-1) was prohibited at the time of her offense. She contends that until its repeal in 2014, SDCL 34-20A-93 prohibited the enforcement of laws, such as SDCL 32-23-1 that included " drinking, drunkenness, or being found in an intoxicated condition" as an element of the offense. We disagree and affirm the conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] In 2013, Mundy-Geidd was arrested and charged with DUI, in violation of SDCL 32-23-1. The magistrate court denied Mundy-Geidd's pre- and post-trial motions to dismiss, which were predicated on now repealed SDCL 34-20A-93. Following her conviction after a magistrate court trial, the circuit court affirmed.

[¶3] On appeal, Mundy-Geidd argues that from 2012 to 2014, SDCL 34-20A-93 prohibited the enforcement of SDCL 32-23-1. Mundy-Geidd points out that before its repeal in 2014, SDCL 34-20A-93 prohibited the State from enforcing laws that included " drinking, drunkenness, or being found in an intoxicated condition as one of the elements of the offense." [1] Mundy-Geidd also points out that the DUI exception to this prohibition was repealed in 2012. See SDCL 34-20A-95 (repealed 2012) (providing that SDCL 34-20A-93 did not apply to " driving under the influence of alcohol, or other similar offenses" ).[2] Therefore, Mundy-Geidd argues that in 2013, SDCL 34-20A-93 prohibited the State from enforcing SDCL 32-23-1 because one of the elements of SDCL 32-23-1 is driving " while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage" or while " having 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol" in one's blood.[3]

[¶4] The State argues that the 2012 Legislature, in repealing SDCL 34-20A-95, did not intend to prohibit the enforcement of SDCL 32-23-1. The State points out that SDCL 34-20A-93 and SDCL 34-20A-95 were passed in 1974 as a part of the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act. See 1974 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 240 (" An Act enacting the uniform alcoholism and intoxication treatment act, and to amend SDCL 27-8-14 and 35-5-21.3 and to repeal SDCL 22-13-4, 27-3-18, 27-3-20, 27-3-21, 27-3-22, 27-8-3.1, and 27-8-12, all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.