Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Holsing

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 2007No. 24334, 24367Published

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 29.] SDCL 23A-28-12 provides: Anyone convicted under ... [SDCL] 22-22-7 ... shall be required as part of the sentence imposed by the court to pay all or part of the cost of any necessary medical, psychological, or psychiatric treatment, or foster care of the minor resulting from the act or acts for which the defendant is convicted.

Id. (emphasis added).3 The trial court in its sentence complied with 23A-28-12 in imposing its sentence from the bench upon Holsing when it unequivocally and without qualification declared: “You will pay for the costs of counseling for the victims. And at least…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. FordSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Ex Parte WattSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1950
  3. State Ex Rel. Conway v. HughesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
  4. State v. JacksonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  5. State v. GullicksonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API