#29952-r-MES

2024 S.D. 12

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STEVEN MICHAEL FOSHAY, Defendant and Appellant.

* * * *

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

* * * *

THE HONORABLE JENNIFER MAMMENGA

Judge

* * * *

BETSY DOYLE of

Minnehaha County Public

 Defender’s Office

Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant

and appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY

Attorney General

JENNIFER M. JORGENSON

Assistant Attorney General

Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff

and appellee.

* * * *

ARGUED

MARCH 22, 2023

OPINION FILED 02/21/24
#29952

-1-

SALTER, Justice

[¶1.] In 2017, the circuit court determined that Steven Foshay was 

incompetent to stand trial on four criminal charges. The court committed him to a 

state facility for competency restoration treatment. These efforts have not been 

successful, and as a result of a series of “re-commitments,” Foshay remains 

committed. In a 2021 motion, Foshay sought dismissal of his criminal charges 

under SDCL 23A-10A-14, which requires dismissal of a defendant’s criminal 

charges when “there is no substantial probability that the defendant will become 

competent to proceed in the foreseeable future.” The circuit court denied his 

motion. Foshay requested intermediate review, which we granted. We reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] On September 14, 2016, Foshay was indicted by a grand jury on four 

criminal counts. Two counts alleged that Foshay had committed first-degree rape 

in violation of SDCL 22-22-1(1), and two counts alleged that Foshay had committed 

sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen in violation of SDCL 22-22-7.

[¶3.] Appointed counsel for Foshay filed a motion for a psychological 

examination in November 2016. The circuit court granted Foshay’s motion, and 

Foshay was evaluated by Dr. Ken Hasseler, a licensed psychologist. In a written 

report, Dr. Hasseler concluded that Foshay suffered from severely impaired 

cognitive functioning that was unlikely to improve with time or treatment.

[¶4.] Relying on Dr. Hasseler’s report, the circuit court found at a February 

2017 competency hearing that Foshay was mentally incompetent to proceed because 
#29952

-2-

“he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against 

him or to assist properly in his defense[.]”

[¶5.] Consequently, the circuit court committed Foshay to the Human 

Services Center (HSC) for “a reasonable period of time not to exceed four (4) 

months, pursuant to [SDCL] 23A-10A-4.” The court further ordered that if the HSC 

did not certify Foshay as competent to proceed within four months, “the [HSC] shall 

submit a report to the Court explaining the Defendant’s progress in treatment and 

giving an opinion as to whether or not there is a substantial probability that in the 

foreseeable future the Defendant will become competent to stand trial[.]”

[¶6.] The four-month period expired without a certification that Foshay was 

competent to stand trial, and the circuit court conducted a competency hearing in 

July 2017. The court considered a psychological evaluation of Foshay conducted by 

Dr. Kirk Zimbelman, a clinical psychologist and the director of psychology at the 

HSC. Dr. Zimbelman’s report related that Foshay continued to “suffer from a 

Developmental Disability, rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that 

he is unable to understand rationally the nature and consequences of the 

proceedings against him or assist properly in his defense.” According to Dr. 

Zimbelman, there was some possibility with “vigorous and sustained restoration 

efforts” that Foshay could attain competency but not within the next year. The 

court did not make a finding as to the likely length of Foshay’s incompetency, and 

the court again committed Foshay to a competency restoration program, this time 

for a reasonable period to not exceed one year.
#29952

-3-

[¶7.] The director of the South Dakota Developmental Center, where Foshay 

was committed at that time, certified on June 19, 2018, that Foshay was competent 

to stand trial. This prompted a September 14, 2018 competency hearing during 

which the circuit court heard testimony from two mental health professionals with 

diverging views as to the question of Foshay’s competency. Tonja Jungwirth, a 

behavioral therapist and licensed professional counselor, stated in her report that 

Foshay chronically suffered from a “mild intellectual disability[,]” but that he 

“would be able to assist his attorney in his defense with the assistance of his 

family.” In contrast, Dr. Hasseler’s opinion regarding Foshay’s competency 

remained unchanged despite the passage of time since the earlier 2017 assessment. 

In his 2018 report, Dr. Hasseler stated that while Foshay’s “knowledge and 

understanding of the courtroom and basic legal concepts has improved with 

competency training,” he still lacked the ability to participate in “his defense due to 

impaired decision making capacity and reasoning.”

[¶8.] The circuit court accepted Dr. Hasseler’s opinions and determined 

Foshay remained incompetent to proceed. The court again did not make any 

findings regarding the likely duration of Foshay’s incompetency and committed 

him, as it had done the previous year, “for such reasonable period of time not to

exceed one (1) year[.]” The court ordered that, absent a certificate of recovery, “the 

[HSC] shall submit a report to the Court explaining the Defendant’s progress in 

treatment and giving an opinion as to whether or not there is a substantial 

probability that in the foreseeable future the Defendant will become competent to 

stand trial[.]”
#29952

-4-

[¶9.] The following year (2019), the circuit court received a report by Dr. 

Ada Powell, a licensed psychologist. In Dr. Powell’s opinion, Foshay continued to 

suffer from a developmental disability and would “remain incompetent to assist 

properly in his own defense well into the foreseeable future.” After a competency 

hearing1 on October 7, 2019, the court again committed Foshay for a reasonable 

period, not to exceed one year. The order indicated, as the previous commitment 

orders had, that absent a certificate of competency, the facility was required to issue 

a report regarding “whether or not there is a substantial probability that the 

Defendant will become competent to stand trial within the next year.”

[¶10.] The circuit court conducted another competency hearing on October 20, 

2020. Prior to the hearing, the circuit court received a written competency report 

prepared by Jungwirth. Unlike her earlier 2018 opinion regarding Foshay’s 

competency, Jungwirth’s 2020 report included the opinion that Foshay “is not

competent to face the charges he is presently facing and is not likely to be found 

competent in the next year.” (Emphasis added.) The opinion was not disputed by 

either party, and the court’s resulting commitment order was virtually identical to 

the previous ones—Foshay was committed for a reasonable period, not to exceed one 

1. The parties have referred to these competency hearings as “review hearings,” 

but this is not accurate. As explained more fully below, a court conducts a 

statutory annual review hearing only when an individual is committed under 

SDCL 23A-10A-15, which authorizes longer commitments that are not 

limited to one year. But here, it appears Foshay was never committed to a 

definite term under SDCL 23A-10A-15, and the “review hearings” referenced 

by the parties appear to have been hearings that roughly corresponded with 

the expiration of the earlier commitment at which the circuit court ordered a 

new commitment under SDCL 23A-10A-14.
#29952

-5-

year, and the facility had the same obligation to report on the results of its 

competency restoration efforts.

[¶11.] In 2021, Dr. Jungwirth2 prepared an updated report which stated that 

Foshay “is not competent to face the charges he is presently facing and is not likely 

to be found competent in the next year.” According to the transcript from a 

November 19, 2021 hearing, the circuit court adopted Dr. Jungwirth’s findings and 

committed Foshay for “an additional period of one year[.]” The record does not 

contain a written order reflecting this determination. Also notable is the fact that 

the incompetency finding was made after the court and parties scheduled a 

December 2021 hearing on Foshay’s then-pending motion to dismiss.

[¶12.] In his motion to dismiss the four criminal charges, Foshay focused on a 

provision of SDCL 23A-10A-14 that was added by the Legislature in 2021 requiring 

the court to “dismiss the criminal charges” in instances where “the court finds that 

there is no substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to 

proceed in the foreseeable future[.]”3 Highlighting the fact that he had been 

2. At earlier points in this case, Dr. Jungwirth had been a masters-level 

counselor who was also a doctoral candidate pursuing a doctor of psychology 

(PsyD). She completed her studies and received her PsyD at some point prior 

to her 2021 evaluation.

3. The amended version of SDCL 23A-10A-14 also provides that, in the event of 

dismissal, the director of the facility where the defendant was committed 

could “recommend that the prosecutor file a petition for civil commitment 

proceedings.” Previously, South Dakota did not include a civil commitment 

procedure for dangerous individuals (other than perhaps SDCL chapter 27A1 relating to the treatment of individuals with mental illness), but during its 

2023 session, the Legislature passed House Bill 1174 which allows for civil 

commitment for individuals whose charges are “dismissed pursuant to § 23A10A-14.” In general terms, individuals are potentially subject to civil 

(continued . . .)
#29952

-6-

committed and detained due to incompetency for almost five years, Foshay argued 

that “[n]othing in the record suggests that there is a substantial possibility that the 

defendant will attain capacity to proceed in the foreseeable future.”

[¶13.] The circuit court conducted a hearing on Foshay’s motion to dismiss on 

December 7, 2021. Dr. Jungwirth was the only witness. She testified that there 

was no substantial likelihood that Foshay would become competent in the 

foreseeable future, though she did not foreclose the possibility that he may recover 

competency at some point beyond the foreseeable future. In response to questions 

from the court, Dr. Jungwirth also testified that several of Foshay’s competency 

metrics had declined since 2018, which she believed could be attributed to 

distancing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic hindering competency 

restoration efforts. However, Dr. Jungwirth’s overarching opinion—that there is no 

substantial likelihood that Foshay would become competent in the foreseeable 

future—remained unchanged.

[¶14.] The circuit court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying 

Foshay’s motion. In its analysis, the court quoted the pre-2021 versions of SDCL 

23A-10A-14 and 23A-10A-15, which did not include the amended language of SDCL 

23A-10A-14 that was the basis of Foshay’s motion.4 Nevertheless, the court 

________________________

(. . . continued)

commitment when they experience “difficulty controlling their behavior and 

it is likely that the person will commit other sexual offenses[.]” H.B. 1174.

4. The provisions of SDCL 23A-10A-15 also authorize dismissal in cases where 

the individual has reached the end of the specific term ordered by the court 

without a restoration of competency. However, the Legislature’s recent civil 

(continued . . .)
#29952

-7-

acknowledged the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson v. Indiana, 

holding that state laws which allow for the indefinite commitment of a defendant 

solely due to incompetency violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 406 U.S. 715, 731, 92 S. Ct. 1845, 1854, 32 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1972).

[¶15.] Although Foshay had been committed for a considerable period of time, 

the circuit court stated that “there have been conflicting opinions from mental 

health professionals who have evaluated Foshay.” This was an apparent reference 

to Dr. Jungwirth’s original 2018 opinion, though the court found this initial opinion 

unconvincing at the time, and Dr. Jungwirth has not since repeated this view. 

Indeed, in all of Dr. Jungwirth’s subsequent reports, she has stated that Foshay 

was not competent and not likely to be restored to competency either within the 

next year or, as was the case at the December 2021 hearing, in the foreseeable 

future.

[¶16.] This latter opinion corresponds with the standard for dismissal now 

set out in SDCL 23A-10A-14. The circuit court’s findings, however, were not 

consistent with this standard. The court found that Foshay was “not currently 

competent to stand trial; however, the Court does not find that there is no 

substantial probability that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future due to 

the impact of COVID-19 protocols on competency restoration education and 

evaluation procedures.” (Emphasis added.)

________________________

(. . . continued)

commitment statute, see supra note 3, appears to authorize civil 

commitments only after a dismissal under SDCL 23A-10A-14.
#29952

-8-

[¶17.] We granted Foshay’s petition for intermediate appeal and now 

consider whether the circuit court erred when it denied Foshay’s motion to dismiss 

the charges against him. While the parties’ appellate briefing focused on the factual 

question of whether Foshay was likely to become competent in the foreseeable 

future, we noted that the court’s successive one-year commitments and lack of 

findings concerning the likely length of Foshay’s incompetency may signal broader 

statutory noncompliance throughout the time he has been committed. Therefore, 

we issued a letter to the parties prior to oral argument stating:

Please be prepared to discuss the statutory authority under 

which the Defendant is currently held and has been held 

following the Order to Commit, dated July 7, 2017, what 

findings were necessary for these orders consistent with the 

statute in effect at the time each order was entered, and 

whether those findings were made. Specifically, please be 

prepared to discuss whether the Defendant has ever been 

committed to a specific term under SDCL 23A-10A-15, or 

whether the Defendant has been committed to a series of 

successive one-year commitments under SDCL 23A-10A-14.

Standard of Review

[¶18.] If there is “no substantial probability that the defendant will become 

competent to proceed in the foreseeable future,” the provisions of SDCL 23A-10A-14 

are quite clear about the court’s obligation—“the court shall dismiss the criminal 

charges against the defendant.” Whether the circuit court correctly applied this 

statutory standard is a legal question, as are several related statutory compliance 

questions we discuss below involving other sections contained within SDCL chapter 
#29952

-9-

23A-10A. We review these legal questions de novo.5 State v. Bowers, 2018 S.D. 50, 

¶ 16, 915 N.W.2d 161, 166 (quoting In re Oliver, 2012 S.D. 9, ¶ 5, 810 N.W.2d 350, 

351). However, we review factual determinations relating to SDCL 23A-10A-14’s 

no-substantial-probability determination, as we would any other fact, for clear 

error. See Smith v. WIPI Group, USA, Inc., 2023 S.D. 48, ¶ 34, 996 N.W.2d 368, 378 

(“We review a circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error.” (citing Mathis 

Implement Co. v. Heath, 2003 S.D. 72, ¶ 9, 665 N.W.2d 90, 92)).

Analysis and Decision

[¶19.] A person who is not competent may not be tried or punished for a 

criminal charge. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S. Ct. 896, 904, 43 L. Ed. 

2d 103 (1975) (“It has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is 

such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the 

proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his 

defense may not be subjected to a trial.”). Our Legislature has enacted a broad 

5. The parties suggest that we should review the circuit court’s denial of 

Foshay’s motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion, but the court did not 

exercise its discretion here. Still, in some cases, there are discretionary 

determinations a circuit court must make that follow the statutory 

requirements set out below that would be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

For example, once a court finds there is a substantial probability that a 

defendant will become competent to proceed within the next year and 

complies with the statutory dictate that it shall order the defendant to be 

placed in a competency restoration program, the court has discretion to 

determine the specific duration of the placement, so long as the duration does 

not exceed one year. SDCL 23A-10A-14. Likewise, we would review the 

length of a court’s placement under SDCL 23A-10A-15 for an abuse of 

discretion in cases where the court finds that there is no substantial 

probability that the defendant will become competent to proceed within one 

year but there is a substantial probability that a defendant will become 

competent in the foreseeable future and also in cases where the one year 

period runs without the issuance of a certificate of recovery. Id.
#29952

-10-

statutory prohibition upon trying and punishing individuals who are not competent. 

See SDCL 23A-10A-2 (“A person cannot be tried, sentenced, or punished for any 

public offense while he is mentally incompetent to proceed.”). The Legislature has 

also included within chapter 23A-10A a detailed procedure for evaluating criminal 

defendants to assess their competency and, where authorized, commit them in order 

to provide competency restoration efforts so that they may be tried, if possible. See 

generally SDCL ch. 23A-10A (entitled, “Inquiry into Defendant’s Mental 

Competency to Proceed”). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that 

these state laws implicate the due process protections of the United States 

Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. Jackson, 406 U.S. at 720, 92 S. Ct. at 1849.

[¶20.] In Jackson, the Supreme Court specifically held that “a person charged 

by a State with a criminal offense who is committed solely on account of his 

incapacity to proceed to trial cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time 

necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain 

that capacity in the foreseeable future.” Id. at 738. As a corollary, an “indefinite 

commitment” for an incompetent person is not a reasonable period of time and “does 

not square with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.” Id. at 731.

[¶21.] Foshay relates Jackson to SDCL 23A-10A-14 and argues that the 

circuit court should have dismissed the 2017 charges because the only evidence at 

the December 2021 hearing established that Foshay remains incompetent and there 

is no substantial probability he will become competent in the foreseeable future. To 

properly address this claim, however, we must first explain that SDCL 23A-10A-14 

is only implicated here because of statutory noncompliance throughout the 
#29952

-11-

pendency of Foshay’s case that prevented a commitment for a definite time period 

under SDCL 23A-10A-15. This noncompliance led to an indefinite loop of one-year 

commitment orders for which there has been no terminal point short of becoming 

competent until, that is, the Legislature amended SDCL 23A-10A-14 to provide a 

means for dismissal in cases of interminable incompetency.

[¶22.] When executed correctly, chapter 23A-10A puts committed criminal 

defendants on a determinate path that has—in a manner of speaking—a beginning, 

a middle, and an end. The process begins with a motion seeking a competency 

assessment under SDCL 23A-10A-3. If the court finds that the defendant is 

“mentally incompetent to proceed,”6 the court shall order the defendant committed 

for treatment “for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is 

necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that in the 

foreseeable future the defendant will attain the capacity to permit the trial to 

proceed.” SDCL 23A-10A-4.

[¶23.] After this initial evaluation period, “the court shall set a time for 

hearing to determine whether there is a substantial probability that the defendant 

will become competent to proceed and whether there is a substantial probability 

that it will occur within the next year.” SDCL 23A-10A-14. This finding is critical, 

6. A person is “mentally incompetent to proceed” and cannot, therefore, be tried 

or punished if the person “is suffering from a mental disease, developmental 

disability, as defined in § 27B-1-18, or psychological, physiological, or 

etiological condition rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that 

he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings 

against him or to assist properly in his defense.” SDCL 23A-10A-1.
#29952

-12-

and as amended in 2021, SDCL 23A-10A-14 allows for only three potential 

outcomes:

[1.] If the court finds there is a substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent to proceed within the next year, 

the court shall order the defendant to be placed in a restoration 

to competency program under the direction of an approved 

facility, committed to an approved facility, or placed on 

outpatient status for restoration to competency if the defendant 

is not considered to be a danger to the health and safety of 

others for an additional specified period of time, not to exceed 

one year, or until the director of the facility issues a certificate of 

recovery pursuant to § 23A-10A-4.1.

[2.] If the court finds there is no substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent to proceed within one year but 

there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become 

competent in the foreseeable future, the court shall review the 

defendant’s condition to determine appropriate placement and 

order the defendant to be placed in a restoration to competency 

program under the direction of an approved facility, committed 

to an approved facility, or to be placed on outpatient status for 

restoration to competency if the defendant is not considered to 

be a danger to the health and safety of others for a term 

consistent with § 23A-10A-15.

. . . 

[3.] If the court finds that there is no substantial probability that 

the defendant will become competent to proceed in the foreseeable 

future, the court shall dismiss the criminal charges against the 

defendant. If the director of the facility determines there is 

probable cause to believe that the defendant is a danger to self 

or others if the defendant is released, the director shall include 

the basis for that determination in the report and may 

recommend that the prosecutor file a petition for civil 

commitment proceedings.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶24.] As these statutory provisions illustrate, the court’s finding regarding 

the likely duration of the defendant’s incompetency is necessary to determine the 

next step in the course of the defendant’s pretrial commitment and, ultimately, the 
#29952

-13-

criminal case itself. Where a defendant remains incompetent after the initial 

evaluation period, the circuit court must determine whether there is a substantial 

probability that the defendant will become competent in the next year, or not.7

[¶25.] If the circuit court finds the former, it can continue the defendant’s 

commitment for no more than one year under SDCL 23A-10A-14. Both the current 

and previous versions of the statute state, “If the one year provided for in this 

section has run without a certificate of recovery being issued . . . the court shall . . . 

order the defendant’s placement in a restoration to competency program . . . for a 

term consistent with § 23A-10A-15.” SDCL 23A-10A-14 (emphasis added) (2021); 

SDCL 23A-10A-14 (2020). However, if the court finds the there is a substantial 

probability that the defendant will become competent but not in the next year, the

court must order a placement, which could include commitment, to pursue 

competency restoration for a term of years under the provisions of SDCL 23A-10A15.

[¶26.] Commitments under SDCL 23A-10A-15 have fewer temporal 

restrictions and can extend beyond one year. In 2018, the statute provided in 

relevant part:

If the most serious charge against the defendant is a Class A or 

B felony, the order of detention shall be for any period of time 

deemed reasonable by the court or until the charges have been 

dismissed by the prosecution. The order for detention may not 

exceed the maximum penalty allowable for the most serious 

charge facing the defendant. Upon expiration of the order of 

7. Under the pre-2021 version of SDCL 23A-10A-14, after the four-month 

evaluation period, the court was required to find “whether the defendant is 

reasonably likely to become competent to proceed within the next year.” 

SDCL 23A-10A-14 (2020) (emphasis added).
#29952

-14-

detention, . . . the criminal charges against the defendant shall 

be dismissed. . . .

Every twelve months thereafter the director of the approved 

facility shall notify the court if the defendant is still in the 

approved facility pursuant to this chapter, and the circuit court 

shall hold a hearing to review any order of detention to 

determine if the defendant has become competent to proceed.

SDCL 23A-10A-15 (2018) (emphasis added).

[¶27.] Under the 2021 amendments, the text of SDCL 23A-10A-15 now 

specifically states that for Class C felonies, like the two Foshay faces, the court’s 

commitment must be for a “term of years that the court determines is reasonable[.]” 

And, of course, even without these recent amendments, Jackson forbids committing 

a defendant “for an indefinite period simply on account of his incompetency to stand 

trial[.]” Jackson, 406 U.S. at 720, 92 S. Ct. at 1849.

[¶28.] The dissent argues that SDCL 23A-10A-15 applies only to Class A, B, 

and now C felonies, creating a statutory void into which defendants not accused of 

these types of offenses, and their commitment proceedings, disappear. The short 

response is that the Legislature has not absently overlooked this class of 

defendants. Under SDCL 23A-10A-14, all defendants who are not competent must 

be placed for competency restoration at either an approved facility or in an 

outpatient setting if they are not considered dangerous “for a term consistent with 

§ 23A-10A-15” in every case where: (1) the circuit court finds “there is no 

substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to proceed within 

one year but there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become 

competent in the foreseeable future[;]” or (2) “the one year provided for in [SDCL 
#29952

-15-

23A-10A-14] has run without a certificate of recovery being issued[.]” (Emphasis 

added.)

[¶29.] Class A, B, and C felonies are treated specifically in the text of SDCL 

23A-10A-15 because each may be punished by a sentence of life in prison. And 

without stating that the detention period for these offenses must be “a term of 

years[,]” the following sentence of SDCL 23A-10A-15 that prohibits detentions from 

“exceed[ing] the maximum penalty” would seemingly authorize an indefinite 

pretrial commitment for a defendant’s life and, of course, implicate the limitations 

of Jackson.

[¶30.] In any event, the completion of the term of years ordered pursuant to 

SDCL 23A-10A-15 triggers the statute’s dismissal provision which serves as a 

terminal point for the criminal case. The 2021 amendments to SDCL 23A-10A-14 

added a similar terminal point, but it is not as self-executing. Rather, it depends 

upon the court’s determination that there is no substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent in the foreseeable future. This, as we noted 

above, is the third option available under SDCL 23A-10A-14 for a circuit court 

assessing the likely duration of a defendant’s incompetency.

[¶31.] Here, the circuit court’s commitment orders from 2018 to the present 

have lacked any findings regarding the likely length of Foshay’s incompetency. As a 

result, Foshay has been committed, and “re-committed,” each year since 2018 

without any prospect that his commitment will end, short of attaining competency. 

This is true despite the fact that at every competency hearing after 2018, the expert 

evidence indisputably indicated that Foshay was unlikely to become competent 
#29952

-16-

either within one year or within the foreseeable future. Had the court made a 

finding consistent with this evidence, Foshay could have avoided successive oneyear re-commitments under the provisions of SDCL 23A-10A-14 and been 

committed to a term of years deemed reasonable by the court pursuant to SDCL 

23A-10A-15. He then would have known with certainty when his commitment 

would end if he did not become competent.8

[¶32.] Omitting the critical finding as to the likely duration of a defendant’s 

incompetency hinders the correct operation of the commitment statutes and could 

increase the risk that a commitment order for a defendant who is not competent to 

proceed violates the defendant’s due process rights under Jackson. But our concern 

in this regard has been allayed by the Legislature’s timely 2021 amendments to 

SDCL 23A-10A-14, which now allow for dismissal of the charges in cases of 

unremitting incompetency that do not result in a commitment under SDCL 23A10A-15.

[¶33.] And although Foshay’s successive one-year commitments were not 

authorized, he has not identified this noncompliance as a basis for relief; nor has he 

alleged the overall length of his commitment transgressed Jackson.9 Instead, he 

8. In cases where an institution issues a certificate of recovery which does not 

ultimately sustain a finding of competency, the statutory course is essentially 

unaffected. See SDCL 23A-10A-4.1 (2020) (stating that if “the court does not 

find . . . that the defendant has recovered [despite the issuance of a certificate 

of competency,] . . . the court shall order the defendant to be placed in a 

restoration to competency program . . . for a term consistent with this section 

and §§ 23A-10A-14 and 23A-10A-15”); SDCL 23A-10A-4.1 (2021) (same).

9. Throughout the commitment proceedings, neither party asked the circuit 

court to make findings regarding the likely duration of Foshay’s 

(continued . . .)
#29952

-17-

has invoked the dismissal provision of the amended SDCL 23A-10A-14, and it is at 

this point that we join the parties’ arguments and the circuit court’s decision to 

deny Foshay’s motion to dismiss.

[¶34.] Because SDCL 23A-10A-14 now expressly requires the circuit court to 

dismiss the criminal charges if “there is no substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent to proceed in the foreseeable future[,]” the circuit 

court was obligated to enter findings of fact pertaining to this standard. Here, the 

court’s factual determination that it “cannot find that there is no substantial 

probability that Defendant will ever gain competency” was not responsive to the 

statutory text, and it was also clearly erroneous.10

[¶35.] The circuit court’s decision appears to have hinged on Dr. Jungwirth’s 

responses to questions from the court and the State regarding the impact COVID-19 

protocols may have had on Foshay’s most recent test scores and the potential of 

using different methods of instruction in an attempt to raise these scores. However, 

while Dr. Jungwirth agreed that, given this potential, she was not of the opinion 

that Foshay would never achieve competency, she reiterated that she was still of 

________________________

(. . . continued)

incompetency, and, in fact, the parties agreed to Foshay’s continued one-year 

commitments at each of the 2018, 2019, and 2020 competency hearings.

10. The State has the burden to prove “the mental competence of the defendant 

by a preponderance of the evidence[,]” SDCL 23A-10A-6.1, but neither 

chapter 23A-10A nor our decisions address which party has the burden of 

proving that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will 

become competent in the foreseeable future. However, it is not necessary to 

determine the question in this case. The parties have not addressed the issue 

in their submissions, and we do not perceive the assignment of the burden to 

be outcome determinative in this case, given the undisputed nature of the 

evidence at the hearing for the motion to dismiss.
#29952

-18-

the opinion there was no substantial probability that he would become competent in 

the foreseeable future. The circuit court’s decision incorrectly conflated these two 

opinions which are, in fact, distinct.

[¶36.] The standard set forth in SDCL 23A-10A-14 corresponds with Dr. 

Jungwirth’s opinion that there was no substantial probability that Foshay would 

become competent in the foreseeable future. The fact that Dr. Jungwirth also 

testified that she could not say that Foshay would never achieve competency was 

not relevant to the circuit court’s statutory determination. As such, the undisputed 

testimony at the hearing reflected that there was no substantial probability that 

Foshay would become competent in the foreseeable future, and the circuit court 

clearly erred in finding otherwise.11

Conclusion

[¶37.] The absence of a finding relating to the likely duration of Foshay’s 

incompetency prevented his commitment under the more appropriate provisions of 

SDCL 23A-10A-15 and resulted in unauthorized annual “re-commitments” under 

SDCL 23A-10A-14 with no terminal point short of achieving competency. However, 

the parties have not noted this statutory noncompliance and have centered their 

arguments upon Foshay’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the recently enacted 

dismissal provision of SDCL 23A-10A-14, which requires the court to dismiss the 

11. As it related to the statutory standard for dismissal, the COVID-19 testimony 

elicited from Dr. Jungwirth was a quintessential red herring. Foshay was 

not competent before the COVID-19 pandemic, and Dr. Jungwirth did not 

testify that there was a substantial probability that Foshay would, or would 

have, become competent in the foreseeable future without the COVID-19 

distancing restrictions.
#29952

-19-

charges against the defendant where there is no substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent in the foreseeable future. The circuit court erred 

when it applied this standard, and its principal factual finding regarding the 

likelihood that Foshay would achieve competency was clearly erroneous.

[¶38.] We reverse the circuit court’s decision and remand the case for the 

entry of an order dismissing the criminal charges against Foshay. Although the 

record contains a recommendation by the director of the facility in which Foshay is 

currently placed that he continue to be held for the reasons set forth in SDCL 23A10A-14, any further determinations as to those recommendations must be 

addressed through a civil commitment proceeding, as noted in this statute.

[¶39.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and DEVANEY and MYREN, Justices, concur.

[¶40.] KERN, Justice, dissents.

KERN, Justice (dissenting).

[¶41.] I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s factual finding that 

there is no substantial probability that Foshay will become competent within the 

foreseeable future. The majority opinion correctly holds that clear error review is 

applicable to the circuit court’s factual determination concerning whether Foshay is 

likely to become competent within the foreseeable future. However, the majority 

opinion then proceeds to conduct what amounts to a cursory de novo review, 

substituting its own factual findings for those of the circuit court. In so doing, the 

majority opinion fails to consider evidence and testimony in the record that 

seriously undermines the credibility of Dr. Jungwirth’s perfunctory statement that 

Foshay will likely remain incompetent for the foreseeable future.
#29952

-20-

[¶42.] In addition, as detailed in Section 1, I also dissent from portions of the 

majority opinion’s analysis of SDCL 23A-10A-15 and note apparent gaps in the 

statutory language. Despite the issue not being raised or briefed by either party on 

appeal or as a basis for the motion to dismiss, the majority opinion reads additional 

criminal offenses into the limited class of felonies referenced in SDCL 23A-10A-15. 

Such improvisation usurps the authority and responsibility of the Legislature 

especially where, as here, the statutory scheme lacks clarity and would benefit from 

further revision. Instead of attempting to fix statutory defects that have no bearing 

on the ultimate resolution of this appeal, I would postpone any discussion or 

analysis of these matters until the Legislature has had an opportunity to exercise 

its lawmaking prerogative or until a more appropriate case where the issue is 

directly presented and the Court has the benefit of the parties’ advocacy.

1. SDCL 23A-10A-15 applies to Class A, B, or C felonies 

and further interpretation is unnecessary in this 

case.

[¶43.] Before reaching the merits of Foshay’s motion to dismiss, I first 

address the majority opinion’s analysis of SDCL 23A-10A-15. “Resolving an issue of 

statutory interpretation necessarily begins with an analysis of the statute’s text.” 

In re Implicated Individual, 2021 S.D. 61, ¶ 16, 966 N.W.2d 578, 583 (citing Long v. 

State, 2017 S.D. 78, ¶ 12, 904 N.W.2d 358, 363). “When the language in a statute is 

clear, certain, and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and this 

Court’s only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.” 

Id. (quoting Long, 2017 S.D. 78, ¶ 13, 904 N.W.2d at 364). “This [C]ourt assumes 

that statutes mean what they say and that legislators have said what they meant.” 
#29952

-21-

Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 199 

(alteration in original) (quoting In re Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 

882, 885 (S.D. 1984)). “[R]esorting to legislative history is justified only when 

legislation is ambiguous.” Id. (alteration in original).

[¶44.] SDCL 23A-10A-14 provides, in relevant part:

If the court finds there is no substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent to proceed within one year but 

there is a substantial probability that the defendant will become 

competent in the foreseeable future, the court shall review the 

defendant’s condition to determine appropriate placement and 

order the defendant to be placed in a restoration to competency 

program under the direction of an approved facility, committed 

to an approved facility, or to be placed on outpatient status for 

restoration to competency if the defendant is not considered to 

be a danger to the health and safety of others for a term 

consistent with § 23A-10A-15. . . .

If the court finds that there is no substantial probability that the 

defendant will become competent to proceed in the foreseeable 

future, the court shall dismiss the criminal charges against the 

defendant.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶45.] Additionally, the 2018 version of SDCL 23A-10A-15 provides that:

If the most serious charge against the defendant is a Class A or 

Class B felony, the order of detention shall be for any period of 

time deemed reasonable by the court or until the charges have 

been dismissed by the prosecution. The order for detention may 

not exceed the maximum penalty allowable for the most serious 

charge facing the defendant. Upon expiration of the order of 

detention, or after the expiration of the longest time the 

defendant could have been sentenced, whichever is longest, the 

criminal charges against the defendant shall be dismissed.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶46.] As noted by the majority opinion, the current version of SDCL 23A10A-15 now includes Class C felonies, two of which are pending against Foshay for 
#29952

-22-

first-degree rape. Nevertheless, the majority opinion concludes that SDCL 23A10A-15 must apply to all classes of offenses. But this interpretive result is not at all 

“clear” from the statutory text—in fact it is missing. The current version of SDCL 

23A-10A-15, in its very first sentence, only references cases where “the most serious 

charge against the defendant is a Class A, B, or C felony.” The section does not 

explicitly reference any other class of offenses, leaving a hole in the statutory 

scheme.

[¶47.] The only “clear” attribute of SDCL 23A-10A-15 is its ambiguity since 

the plain text of the statute does not specify what lesser felonies or misdemeanors, 

if any, would be subject to this provision. The majority opinion argues that the 

statutory prohibition of detention periods “exceed[ing] the maximum penalty” for 

the most serious charged offense applies to lesser felonies and misdemeanors that 

carry a maximum term of years. But this reading could yield illogical and unjust 

results. For example, incompetent defendants facing a Class 1 felony could be 

detained, without trial or commitment proceedings, for up to the maximum penalty 

of 50 years. It is an open question whether such detention constitutes a “reasonable 

period of time” under Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S. Ct. 1845, 32 L. E. 2d 

435 (1972).12 In short, the majority opinion steers SDCL 23A-10A-15 into choppy 

12. According to the majority opinion, the “reasonable” requirement in the first 

sentence of SDCL 23A-10A-15 applies “specifically” to Class A, B, and C 

felonies. Under this interpretation, the statute does not supply the 

requirement that the order of detention for lesser offenses be for a 

“reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a 

substantial probability that [the defendant] will attain [competence] in the 

foreseeable future.” Jackson, 406 U.S. at 738, 92 S. Ct. at 1858. Detention 

(continued . . .)
#29952

-23-

constitutional waters, which should be avoided if “fairly possible.” City of 

Chamberlain v. R.E. Lien, Inc., 521 N.W.2d 130, 131 (S.D. 1994).

[¶48.] Given these difficulties, any interpretative endeavor must attempt to 

plug the statutory hole in a manner that avoids constitutional complications. 

Principles of judicial restraint counsel that, at this juncture, any such statutory 

revision would be best addressed by the Legislature. At the very least, it is 

imprudent for this Court to attempt to resolve interpretative questions that are not 

at issue in the case before us and have not been raised or briefed by the parties. It 

is important to remember that Foshay cites the dismissal provision of SDCL 23A10A-14—not statutory noncompliance—as the basis for his motion to dismiss. He 

has also not appealed any of his preceding commitment orders because both parties 

agreed to the successive one-year commitments at each of the annual competency 

hearings in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

[¶49.] Here, we need not reach any conclusion as to how the period of 

commitment for lesser offenses should be addressed because Foshay is charged with 

two Class C felonies. SDCL 23A-10A-15 plainly authorizes the circuit court, if it 

finds substantial probability of competency in the foreseeable future, to commit 

Foshay “for a term of years the court determines is reasonable or until the charges 

have been dismissed by the prosecution.” As the majority opinion correctly notes, 

the circuit court’s indefinite loop of successive one-year commitments does not 

comport with this provision. However, given that SDCL 23A-10A-15 would 

________________________

(. . . continued)

for 25 or even 50 years could very well violate Jackson and thus render SDCL 

23A-10A-15, as interpreted by the majority opinion, unconstitutional.
#29952

-24-

ostensibly authorize a term of commitment much longer than the five years already 

served by Foshay, it is difficult to conclude, at this juncture, that the statutory 

noncompliance has resulted in any meaningful deprivation of his constitutional 

rights.13 Moreover, Foshay has been accorded a review hearing to assess his 

competency each year as required by SDCL 23A-10A-15. Our review should thus 

focus on the dismissal criteria of SDCL 23A-10A-14.

2. The circuit court properly denied Foshay’s motion to 

dismiss.

[¶50.] The standard for clear error review is well-established:

In applying the clearly erroneous standard, our function is not to 

decide factual issues de novo. The question is not whether this 

Court would have made the same findings that the trial court 

did, but whether on the entire evidence we are left with a 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. 

This Court is not free to disturb the lower court’s findings unless 

it is satisfied that they are contrary to a clear preponderance of 

the evidence.

Osman v. Karlen and Assocs., 2008 S.D. 16, ¶ 15, 746 N.W.2d 437, 443 (quoting FinAg, Inc. v. Feldman Bros., 2007 S.D. 105, ¶ 19, 740 N.W.2d 857, 862–63). 

Nevertheless, the majority opinion, donning the mantle of fact-finder, departs from 

this precedent in two important respects.

[¶51.] First, the circuit court is best situated to evaluate the credibility and 

demeanor of the expert witnesses appearing before it and to accord expert opinions 

13. Interpreting Jackson, the Eighth Circuit has held that a four-year 

commitment to determine competency was not a due process violation where 

the defendant faced a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years if 

convicted. See U.S. v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 1994). Here, Foshay, if 

convicted, could be sentenced to life imprisonment. See SDCL 22-6-1(3). 

Thus, his “total time in confinement for purposes of competency 

determination [is] far less than the possible sentence.” Ecker, 30 F.3d at 969.
#29952

-25-

the weight it deems appropriate. We have repeatedly held that “[f]act finders are 

free to reasonably accept or reject all, part, or none of an expert’s opinion.” O’Neill 

v. O’Neill, 2016 S.D. 15, ¶ 17, 876 N.W.2d 486, 494 (quoting Sauer v. Tiffany 

Laundry & Dry Cleaners, 2001 S.D. 24, ¶ 14, 622 N.W.2d 741, 745). In short, “[t]his 

Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or gauge the credibility of the witnesses.” 

Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266, 272 (S.D. 1994). Notwithstanding this 

precedent, the majority opinion faults the circuit court for not adopting Dr. 

Jungwirth’s conclusory statement that Foshay will not be competent within the 

foreseeable future.

[¶52.] In a ten-page incorporated memorandum opinion denying Foshay’s 

motion to dismiss, the circuit court provided detailed factual findings supporting its 

decision to depart from Dr. Jungwirth’s ultimate conclusion. Most significantly, the 

court noted that “Jungwirth’s further testimony that competency restoration 

proceedings were hindered by COVID-19 protocols for all individuals participating 

in this programming gives the [c]ourt significant pause in deciding that this 

Defendant will never be restored to competency.” Yet, the majority opinion strongly 

implies that the circuit court was obligated to take Dr. Jungwirth’s conclusions at 

face value. Such an approach would depart from the circuit court’s responsibilities 

as fact-finder and this Court’s obligation to extend deference to the circuit court’s

factual findings.

[¶53.] Second, despite our responsibility to conduct a “thorough review of the 

evidence” on clear error review, the majority opinion lacks an in-depth analysis of 

Foshay’s competency history or Dr. Jungwirth’s testimony. Osman, 2008 S.D. 16, 
#29952

-26-

¶ 15, 746 N.W.2d at 442 (citation omitted). The record reveals that Foshay is 

twenty-five years of age and has been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability 

and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He currently resides at the Volunteers 

of America facility in Sioux Falls. Although Foshay is currently receiving weekly 

in-person competency training, his training was exclusively over the phone during 

the pandemic. Since his indictment for first-degree rape in 2016 and resulting 

commitment, Foshay has received annual competency evaluations.

[¶54.] At the November 19, 2021 dismissal hearing, the court admitted and 

took judicial notice of Dr. Jungwirth’s September 2021 competency evaluation 

report.14 Dr. Jungwirth conducted this annual evaluation over Zoom and 

administered two tests to measure competency—the Competence Assessment for 

Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR), which is a 

multiple choice exam; and the Fitness Interview Test, Revised Edition (FIT-R), 

which provides questions to guide a structured interview focusing on criminal 

procedure and related matters. On the CAST-MR, Foshay achieved a belowaverage correct response rate of 38%.

[¶55.] Based on the results of these tests, Dr. Jungwirth found that Foshay’s 

“overall intellectual functioning level [was] within the mild range of intellectual 

disability.” Foshay was compliant with attending competency training and only had 

a “mild impairment” in his ability to understand the nature of the legal proceedings 

against him. Dr. Jungwirth also reported that Foshay was cooperative during the 

evaluation and had the ability to communicate with counsel and assist in his own 

14. The record also contains evaluation reports from 2018, 2019, and 2020.
#29952

-27-

defense.15 Nevertheless, according to Dr. Jungwirth, Foshay was not presently 

competent to stand trial and was “not likely to be found competent in the next 

year.” The report contained no determination as to the likelihood of Foshay’s 

eventual rehabilitation beyond one year. Dr. Jungwirth concluded that having 

Foshay “review concepts more than once a week may help improve his scores from 

previous evaluations.”

[¶56.] At the November 2021 hearing, Dr. Jungwirth acknowledged that she 

had certified Foshay as competent in 2018. She testified that her 2018 opinion was 

based on his previous 94% score on the CAST-MR: “I based that on him having a 

high number of correct answers when administered that assessment . . . . So he had 

a score above the [mean] for a person who is to be found competent with an 

intellectual disability.” Moreover, Dr. Jungwirth did not render her conclusion that 

there was no substantial probability that Foshay will become competent in the 

foreseeable future until specifically prompted by defense counsel.

[¶57.] On cross-examination, Dr. Jungwirth candidly acknowledged that 

“there would still be some steps that could be taken to try to help rehabilitate 

[Foshay].” She told the circuit court:

I think the Covid pandemic really did a lot of hinderance on not 

just [Foshay’s] competency training, but with other people that 

I’ve evaluated that not being able to have face to face, having 

masks on, social distancing, a lot of those things really kind of 

influence a lot of the treatment or being able to be taught in a 

way that somebody can ret[]ain it.

15. Dr. Jungwirth noted that it would be difficult to predict whether Foshay 

could sustain a cooperative attitude under the stress of trial.
#29952

-28-

Dr. Jungwirth agreed that additional efforts could be made to assist Foshay in 

achieving competency, including in-person instruction, more frequent classes, and 

the use of teaching aids such as flashcards.

[¶58.] Dr. Jungwirth was specifically asked: “[Y]our opinion isn’t that 

[Foshay] can’t be restored to competence at some point; is that right? Just not in 

one year.” She responded, stating, “I’m saying one year.” On redirect, defense 

counsel asked Dr. Jungwirth if she believed “that there is a substantial probability 

that [Foshay] will become competent in the foreseeable future.” She initially 

responded: “With his total score on the CAST-MR . . . needing to be over 90 percent, 

it could take quite a few years to [get to] the level of being competent.” However, 

after defense counsel reiterated the question, Dr. Jungwirth stated, “No, I don’t.”

[¶59.] Next, the court asked Dr. Jungwirth whether the precipitous 

decrease—from 94% to 38%—in Foshay’s CAST-MR correct response rate was a 

result commonly observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Jungwirth 

explained:

Actually yes, it is. You can look at it for competency, the 

regression that people are having with being able to retain 

information and learning is quite difficult. Working with 

children in the education system, you’re seeing the same thing. 

When schools were shut down and not getting that face-to-face 

learning, in my opinion with the kids and students I’ve worked 

with, does seem very much the same thing; especially if they 

have cognitive disability of mental health issues.

[¶60.] Despite this context, the majority opinion unquestioningly relies on 

what it characterizes as Dr. Jungwirth’s “undisputed testimony” that there was no 

substantial probability of Foshay attaining competence within the foreseeable 

future. Yet, Dr. Jungwirth’s exact opinion on future competency is ambiguous. In 
#29952

-29-

her report, Dr. Jungwirth only determined that Foshay was unlikely to become 

competent within the next year. She reiterated on cross-examination that her 

opinion applied to a one-year timeframe and did not foreclose the possibility that 

Foshay might become competent in the future. Although she rejected the possibility 

that Foshay had a substantial probability of becoming competent within the 

foreseeable future, Dr. Jungwirth did not define her understanding of “foreseeable 

future.” Given the flow of questioning, Dr. Jungwirth could have very well 

understood “foreseeable future” as referencing a time period close to one year, which 

would not comport with SDCL 23A-10A-14.

[¶61.] In any event, the circuit court is not required to adopt Dr. Jungwirth’s 

testimony without scrutiny. Indeed, Dr. Jungwirth’s previous 2018 report 

undermined her current conclusions. If Foshay, given his score of 94% on the 

CAST-MR, was competent to face charges only a few years ago, it is reasonable to 

conclude that he could likely become so again within the foreseeable future. In light 

of Dr. Jungwirth’s varying opinions, the circuit court had ample reason to question 

the credibility of her conclusions at the hearing on the motion to dismiss.16

[¶62.] The majority opinion also brushes aside Dr. Jungwirth’s testimony—

which was expressly referenced in the circuit court’s memorandum opinion—that 

competency training was negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Far 

from being “a quintessential red herring,” this goes to the heart of whether Foshay’s 

16. Moreover, the circuit court was free to reject the opinion of Dr. Jungwirth in 

its entirety, just as it did in its 2018 order recommitting Foshay for further 

competency rehabilitation after Dr. Jungwirth found him competent to 

proceed.
#29952

-30-

decreased competency is due to exogenous factors that are unlikely to persist into 

the foreseeable future. Given Dr. Jungwirth’s opinion that Foshay could benefit 

from additional rehabilitation efforts, the circuit court did not err in remanding the 

defendant for further training consistent with the recommendations in Dr. 

Jungwirth’s report and testimony. Now that COVID-19 has dissipated to a 

significant degree, the additional rehabilitative services recommended by Dr. 

Jungwirth may indeed restore Foshay to his former levels of competence, which Dr. 

Jungwirth once certified were sufficient for him to stand trial.

[¶63.] I am thus unable to join the majority opinion’s factual finding that 

“there is no [substantial] probability that Foshay will become competent in the 

foreseeable future.” At the very least, the high standard to find that the circuit 

court committed clear error—one which requires a finding contrary to a clear 

preponderance of the evidence—has not been met. The majority opinion simply 

fails to consider, or even address, significant facts and testimony that support the 

circuit court’s factual determination as to Foshay’s competency. However, because 

of the statutory noncompliance identified by the majority, this case should be 

remanded to the circuit court for further hearing and the appropriate findings 

necessary for a term of commitment pursuant to SDCL 23A-10A-15.