Opinion ID: 1599037
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal or state constitutional due process protection.

Text: Wyant next argues that the due process clause contained in the state constitution [2] or the United States Constitution, amend. XIV, § 1, applies to punitive damage claims by virtue of their penal nature. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). Wyant then asserts that in order to bring punitive damage procedures in compliance with due process protection, the proof of each element of a punitive damages claim must be made by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a mere preponderance of the evidence. Wyant cites Wheeler, The Constitutional Case for Reforming Punitive Damages Procedures, 69 Va.L.Rev. 269 (1983), for this proposition. Wyant observes that Justices O'Connor and Scalia of the United States Supreme Court have noted that the jury's unbridled discretion in determining punitive damage liability may violate the Due Process Clause. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71, 87, 108 S.Ct. 1645, 1655, 100 L.Ed.2d 62, 78 (1988) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Those Justices asserted that Mississippi's standardless grant of discretion to the jury may be inconsistent with due process. 486 U.S. at 88, 108 S.Ct. at 1656, 100 L.Ed.2d at 78. However, as noted in the discussion in Issue III, South Dakota does have standards in determining the amount of damages a jury can award. [3] Due process does not require the same procedural safeguards for all types of proceedings or for all deprivations of property. Instead, the required procedures can vary according to the specific factual context. See generally Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to `instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.' In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 [90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L.Ed.2d 368] (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). The standard serves to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision. Generally speaking, the evolution of this area of the law has produced across a continuum three standards or levels of proof for different types of cases. At one end of the spectrum is the typical civil case involving a monetary dispute between private parties. Since society has a minimal concern with the outcome of such private suits, plaintiff's burden of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence. The litigants thus share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion. In a criminal case, on the other hand, the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude that historically and without any explicit constitutional requirement they have been protected by standards of proof designed to exclude as nearly as possible the likelihood of an erroneous judgment. In the administration of criminal justice, our society imposes almost the entire risk of error upon itself. This is accomplished by requiring under the Due Process Clause that the state prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, supra . The intermediate standard, which usually employs some combination of the words `clear,' `cogent,' `unequivocal' and `convincing,' is less commonly used, but nonetheless `is no stranger to the civil law.' Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 [87 S.Ct. 483, 487, 17 L.Ed.2d 362] (1966). See also C. McCormick, Evidence § 320 (1954); 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2498 (3d ed. 1940). One typical use of the standard is in civil cases involving allegations of fraud or some other quasicriminal wrongdoing by the defendant. The interests at stake in those cases are deemed to be more substantial than mere loss of money and some jurisdictions accordingly reduce the risk to the defendant of having his reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof. Similarly, this Court has used the `clear, unequivocal and convincing' standard of proof to protect particularly important individual interests in various civil cases. See, e.g., Woodby v. INS, supra, at 285 [87 S.Ct. at 487] (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 [81 S.Ct. 147, 149, 5 L.Ed.2d 120] (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 [63 S.Ct. 1333, 1336, 1353, 87 L.Ed. 1796] (1943) (denaturalization). (Emphasis added.) Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423-24, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 329-30 (1979) (footnotes omitted). We agree with Flockhart that Wyant's due process rights are protected by the trial court's determination (both before discovery is allowed and before the matter goes to the jury) that plaintiff has established a prima facie case that defendant's conduct has been willful, wanton, or malicious. [4] We decline to require a clear and convincing evidence trial standard based on the due process clause contained in the United States or South Dakota Constitutions. [5]