Legal Opinion · Dissent

Boehrns v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 2005No. NonePublished

1DissentMeierhenry, Justice

[¶ 12.] I respectfully dissent. The majority points out that this case creates cause for concern. With this, I completely *16agree. It is cause for concern because (1) vehicular homicide is not defined in the statutes as a crime of violence, (2) the legislature did not intend vehicular homicide to be considered a crime of violence, and (3) no specific findings of fact were made .to support its reclassification as a crime of violence. Tellingly, this has been the only time the Department of Corrections has classified vehicular homicide as a crime of violence when determining parole eligibility.

Veh…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. StetterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. SeidschlawSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State v. BarrientosSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. KoesterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API