Sioux Falls has grown across the Minnehaha-Lincoln county line, and those two counties are in different judicial circuits. For traffic and criminal offenses committed in the Lincoln County portion of Sioux Falls, can preliminary proceedings (like a guilty plea) be heard in Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, without a change of venue? And could the legislature pass a statute letting offenses be tried wherever the city is, regardless of which county the offense actually occurred in?
Plain-English summary
Sioux Falls had expanded across the Minnehaha-Lincoln county line. Mostly Sioux Falls sits in Minnehaha County, but a chunk now sat in Lincoln County. Worse for administrative purposes, Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties were in different judicial circuits (Minnehaha in the Second Judicial Circuit). The seat for Lincoln County criminal matters was Canton, South Dakota, miles from Sioux Falls.
The practical problem: when Sioux Falls police arrested someone in the Lincoln County portion of Sioux Falls, the case would normally need to be heard in Canton (Lincoln County's seat). Transporting officers, defendants, and witnesses to Canton for every routine preliminary matter was inefficient and expensive. Could the routine work happen in Sioux Falls instead?
Mr. Schiager asked AG Meierhenry two questions.
First question: Can preliminary proceedings on Lincoln County offenses, other than issues of fact, be heard in Sioux Falls (Minnehaha County)? Could a Minnehaha County magistrate take a guilty plea for a Lincoln County offense?
Meierhenry's answer was yes, with conditions. SDCL 23A-17-1 specifically handles the cross-county situation. A defendant arrested, held, or present in a county other than the one where the charge is pending may state in writing that he wishes to plead guilty or nolo contendere, waive trial in the original county, and consent to disposition in the arresting county. The prosecuting attorney in each county must approve in writing. Then the papers transfer and the prosecution continues in the new county.
So a defendant arrested in the Minnehaha County part of Sioux Falls for a Lincoln County offense can use SDCL 23A-17-1 to plead guilty in Minnehaha County. The procedure requires defendant initiative (written request), prosecutor approval (both counties), and follows the statute's mechanics. SDCL 23A-16-5, which allows non-fact-issue proceedings to be heard anywhere within the same judicial circuit, did not apply because Minnehaha and Lincoln were in different circuits.
Second question: Could the legislature pass a statute allowing offenses to be tried in any county where the city in which the offense occurred is situated, regardless of which county the offense actually happened in, without a constitutional amendment?
Meierhenry's answer was no. The South Dakota Constitution at Article VI, § 7 guarantees the accused "a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed." The Supreme Court had repeatedly affirmed this constitutional right (Croan, Violett, Blindert, all 1980; Graycek, 1979; Nelson, 1902). The legislature cannot pass a statute that overrides this constitutional right. Without a constitutional amendment, offenses tried over the defendant's objection have to be tried in the county where the offense occurred.
The practical takeaway: Sioux Falls would continue to navigate the cross-county problem one defendant at a time, using SDCL 23A-17-1 waivers when defendants were willing to consent and physically transporting cases to Canton when they were not.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1980 during AG Mark Meierhenry's tenure (1979-1987). Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, and any constitutional amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The Sioux Falls cross-county issue may have been addressed through subsequent legislation, judicial-system reorganization, or constitutional amendment. Modern questions about cross-county criminal proceedings, change of venue, and waiver of jury-of-the-county rights should be verified against current SDCL chapter 23A-17 and any applicable Unified Judicial System rules.
What the opinion meant at the time
For Sioux Falls police and Minnehaha County prosecutors, the practical answer was clear: use SDCL 23A-17-1 as much as possible to keep cases in Sioux Falls. Encourage defendants to use the waiver procedure when appropriate. Accept that cases involving defendants who insisted on Lincoln County trial would have to go to Canton.
For Lincoln County prosecutors, the opinion confirmed their role in cross-county dispositions. Their written approval was a prerequisite for SDCL 23A-17-1 waivers. They could not be sidelined just because the offense happened in the Sioux Falls portion of their county.
For defendants, the opinion identified a procedural tool. Pleading guilty in Sioux Falls could be administratively faster than waiting for a Canton court appearance. The trade-off was giving up the chance to bargain or contest in the county of offense.
For the South Dakota legislature, the opinion was an explicit note that legislative fix was insufficient. If the goal was streamlining Sioux Falls cross-county proceedings without defendant consent, a constitutional amendment was required.
Common questions
Q: Why does Article VI, § 7 protect trial in the county of offense?
A: Historical and structural reasons. Local juries reflect community standards and local knowledge of facts. Cross-county trial could shift the venue to a less familiar community, potentially affecting impartiality. The county-of-offense rule is a vicinage right familiar from common-law tradition and codified in the South Dakota Constitution.
Q: What is SDCL 23A-16-5?
A: It allows non-fact-issue proceedings (motions, sentencing, plea hearings, etc.) to be heard anywhere within the same judicial circuit where the case is pending. This is useful for multi-county circuits but does not help when the two counties are in different circuits, as Minnehaha and Lincoln were.
Q: Could the defendant insist on trial in Lincoln County?
A: Yes. The constitutional right is the defendant's. If the defendant did not consent to the SDCL 23A-17-1 waiver, the case had to be tried in Lincoln County.
Q: What happens at arraignment?
A: SDCL 23A-4-1 directs that arrested persons be taken to the "nearest available committing magistrate." For a Lincoln-County-offense arrest in Sioux Falls, the nearest magistrate might be in Minnehaha County. The initial magistrate appearance can happen in Minnehaha County; subsequent proceedings then have to be sorted under SDCL 23A-17-1 or change of venue.
Q: Could a Minnehaha County judge sentence a defendant for a Lincoln County offense?
A: Yes, if the SDCL 23A-17-1 waiver procedure was followed. The waiver effectively moved the case to Minnehaha County for disposition, and the Minnehaha County judge handled it from there.
Q: Why didn't Lincoln County move its seat closer to Sioux Falls?
A: County seats are typically set by historical decision and are difficult to move. Canton was (and remained) Lincoln County's seat regardless of city growth across the county line.
Background and statutory framework
Cross-county urbanization creates predictable jurisdictional problems. A growing city extends across a county boundary; the new portion becomes a small slice of the neighboring county; the neighboring county's seat is far from the city. Police, prosecutors, courts, and defendants all have to navigate the boundary.
South Dakota's constitutional jury-of-the-county right is robust. The 1980 Supreme Court decisions Meierhenry cited (Croan, Violett, Blindert) were three companion cases dealing with related issues. The court had not loosened the right by interpretation; if anything, it had reinforced it.
SDCL 23A-17-1's waiver procedure was the legislative response to the cross-county problem. By making waiver available, the statute respects the constitutional right (defendants who want jury-of-the-county get it) while creating an efficiency path for defendants who prefer expedited disposition (often a guilty plea bargain).
The opinion did not analyze the change-of-venue mechanism, which is the other tool used in similar situations. Change of venue moves the case to a different county on showing that an impartial jury cannot be empaneled in the original county. That tool is defendant-protective, not efficiency-driven; it does not help when the issue is just administrative convenience.
The bigger structural fix would be redrawing judicial circuit boundaries to put Sioux Falls and its Lincoln County portion in the same circuit. That kind of judicial reorganization is occasional and politically complex. Until it happened, the SDCL 23A-17-1 waiver was the operative practical tool.
Citations and references
Constitutional provisions:
- S.D. Const. Art. VI, § 7 (jury trial in county of offense)
Statutes:
- SDCL 23A-16-3 (statutory restatement of jury-of-county right)
- SDCL 23A-16-5 (non-fact-issue proceedings within judicial circuit)
- SDCL 23A-4-1 (defendant to nearest available magistrate)
- SDCL 23A-17-1 (defendant's written waiver allows disposition in arresting county)
Cases:
- Croan v. State, 295 N.W.2d 728 (S.D. 1980)
- Violett v. State, 295 N.W.2d 730 (S.D. 1980)
- Blindert v. State, 295 N.W.2d 731 (S.D. 1980)
- State v. Graycek, 278 N.W.2d 184 (S.D. 1979)
- In re: Nelson, 19 S.D. 214, 102 N.W. 885 (1902)
Source
Original opinion text
Ability to Conduct Criminal Proceedings in a County Adjacent to The County Where The Alleged Crime Was Committed
Dear Mr. Schiager:
You have requested an official opinion from this office in regard to the following factual situation:
FACTS:
The city of Sioux Falls has expanded beyond Minnehaha County and into Lincoln County. Not only is this a different county, but also a separate judicial circuit. This creates some perplexing problems in the enforcement and prosecution of criminal laws due to the requirement of Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution
which gives an accused the right to a trial before a jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. The problem for Sioux Falls is mainly in transporting police officers from Sioux Falls to Canton, South Dakota, for all judicial proceedings on charges that have been filed on citations or investigations conducted by your officers.
SDCL 23A-16-5 allows proceedings on other than 'issues of fact' to be 'heard and determined at any place in the judicial circuit in which is situated the county where the same is brought or pending.' As stated, Minnehaha and Lincoln County are in different circuits, and you therefore cannot take advantage of this provision.
When a person is arrested for a criminal offense committed in the Lincoln County portion of Sioux Falls, that person may be taken to the Minnehaha County Jail and then to the Minnehaha County Magistrate since the law specifies taking the person 'before the nearest available committing magistrate.' See SDCL 23A-4-1.
Based on the above facts, you have asked the following questions:
QUESTIONS:
-
Can all preliminary proceedings on a criminal or traffic offense committed in the City of Sioux Falls, Lincoln County, other than proceedings considering issues of fact, be heard in Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, Second Judicial Circuit, without a change of venue? For instance, could a Minnehaha County Magistrate take a guilty plea for such an offense?
-
Can legislation be enacted making it possible for an offense to be heard and tried in any county in which is situated the city in which the offense occurred without the necessity of a constitutional amendment?
IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:
The answer to your question is contained in SDCL 23A-17-1:
A defendant arrested, held or present in a county other than that in which the indictment, information, or complaint is pending against him may state in writing that he wishes to plead guilty or nolo contendere, to waive trial in the county in which the indictment, information, or complaint is pending and to consent to disposition of the case in the county in which he was arrested, is held, or is present, subject to the approval of the prosecuting attorney for each county. Upon receipt of the defendant's statement and of the written approval of the prosecuting attorney, the clerk of the court or the court in which the indictment, information, or complaint is pending shall transmit the papers in the proceeding or certified copies thereof to the clerk of the court or court for the county in which the defendant is held and the prosecution shall continue in that county.
The answer then is YES, if the provisions of the above statute are complied with.
IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:
Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution provides in part that 'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to . . . a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.' It is also provided in SDCL 23A-16-3 that 'The accused has the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.' The constitutional provision has been repeatedly affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court. See Croan v. State, 295 N.W.2d 728 (S.D. 1980); Violett v. State, 295 N.W. 2d 730 (S.D. 1980); Blindert v. State, 295 N.W. 2d 731 (S.D. 1980); State v. Graycek, 278 N.W.2d 184 (S.D. 1979); In re: Nelson, 19 S.D. 214, 102 N.W. 885 (1902).
It is obvious from a reading of those cases that no statute could be promulgated which could circumvent the intent of Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution. The answer to your question, therefore, is NO. A constitutional amendment would be needed before an offense could be tried in a county other than the county where the offense occurred but in which is situated the city in which the offense occurred. This answer, of course, assumes that the defendant will not consent to such a disposition.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark V. Meierhenry
Attorney General