Title: O'Neill v. South Dakota Bd.

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

377 N.W.2d 587 (1985) In the Matter of the Grievance Of Charles O'NEILL Appellee, v. SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF CHARITIES AND CORRECTIONS, Appellant. Nos. 14950, 14951. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Argued October 23, 1985. Decided December 4, 1985. Rehearing Denied January 2, 1986. N. Dean Nasser, Jr., of N. Dean Nasser, Jr., P.C., Sioux Falls, for appellee. Dennis Maloney of Maloney, Kolker, Fritz, Hogan & Johnson, Aberdeen, for appellant. WUEST, Acting Justice. The Board of Charities and Corrections (Board) appeals the circuit court reversal of a Career Service Commission (Commission) order denying a grievance of Charles O'Neill (O'Neill) against the South Dakota State Penitentiary (penitentiary). We reverse and remand for a new hearing before the Career Service Commission. This case is on appeal for the second time. In the first appeal, Grievance of O'Neill, 347 N.W.2d 887 (S.D.1984) (O'Neill I), we held that Commission erroneously invoked SDCL 23-3-35(3) in arriving at its decision upholding the dismissal of O'Neill as a guard at the penitentiary. We held the applicable ground for dismissal was SDCL ch. 3-6A and its promulgated regulations (A.R.S.D. 55:01:12:05). We directed a new hearing before Commission to determine if the discharge was "for good cause," which has been defined pursuant to Commission's rule-making power in A.R.S.D. 55:01:12:05. Upon remand, Commission decided the grievance from the previous record over the objections of O'Neill. There was a change of one commissioner from the first hearing. The new commissioner studied a transcript before voting. Upon rehearing, Commission found just cause for O'Neill's termination, as defined in A.R.S.D. 55:01:12:05(5) and/or A.R.S.D. 55:01:12:05(7), which provide: From this decision, O'Neill appealed to the circuit court, which held: Now, Board appeals from the trial court's decision reversing Commission's decision terminating O'Neill and O'Neill has filed a notice of review of the trial court's decision on a "new hearing." In its memorandum opinion incorporated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court stated: The trial court misconstrued our decision in O'Neill I, wherein we held: 347 N.W.2d at 889. It is apparent we remanded this case back to Commission for a new hearing to determine if the incidents constituted good cause as defined by the administrative rules. We never held those incidents were not sufficient to justify O'Neill's termination. We refused to speculate what, if any, just causes might be found on remand. O'Neill claims he did not get a new hearing as mandated by this court. We agree. The wisdom of our decision in directing a new hearing is not an issue in this case. However, a change of personnel on a Commission may occur, and the new Commission in the absence of a hearing examiner should have an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses to judge the credibility. In addition, parties may be compelled to change their trial priorities when the legal issues are different in a second hearing. The issue is whether a new hearing was held. The hearing required in this case is controlled by the provisions of SDCL 1-26-19, SDCL 3-6A-38, and A.R.S.D. 55:01:13:06. The procedure is provided in SDCL 1-26-18, which states: A "new hearing" has not been defined by this court, although we have previously directed one. Application of Union Carbide Corp., 308 N.W.2d 753 (S.D.1981). In Union Carbide, we further held a "contested case" is synonymous with "adjudication." *589 We now hold that a "new hearing" is synonymous to a new trial, except a hearing is before the Commission. Practically every definition of a "new trial" is a reexamination of an issue of fact by the same court. It is generally a retrial of the issue by another jury, but they may be tried again by the court or referee as on the first trial. A "new trial" is a reexamination of an issue of fact. A "new trial" is a trial anew, with as little prejudice to either party as if the cause had never been heard before. See Words and Phrases, "New Trial," and Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, West Publishing Company, Copyright 1968, pp. 1675-6. We conclude a "new hearing" is a hearing anew, with as little prejudice to either party as if the cause had never been heard before. Other errors have been asserted on appeal; however, they were not decided by the trial court, therefore, we decline to rule upon them. We reverse and remand for a new hearing before the Career Service Commission. FOSHEIM, C.J., and MORGAN and HENDERSON, JJ., and HERTZ, Circuit Judge, acting as a Supreme Court Justice, concur.