Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Bariteau

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 2016No. 27567Published

1DissentZinter, Justice

[¶ 30.] I respectfully dissent because the majority has rewritten the statutory definition of sexual contact. SDCL 22-22-7 prohibits defendants, sixteen years of age or older, from engaging in sexual contact with children. SDCL 22-22-7.1 defines the .types of sexual contact that are prohibited. It prohibits a defendant’s “touching ... of the breasts of a female or the genitalia or anus of any person[.]” Id. These quoted words prohibit a defendant’s “touching of’ — not a defendant’s “touching with” — the specified body parts. Additionally, the specified body parts do not include a child’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re the Appeal of the Sales Tax Refund Applications of Black Hills Power & Light Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Joseph Jaskolski and National Insurance Crime Bureau v. Rick DanielsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
  3. City of Sioux Falls v. EwoldtSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. BurdickSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  5. State v. MossSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API