Court Opinion

ID: 9691348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:26:41.742734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:17.376847
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Chief Justice
(concurring in part).
I concur in issue 1 (Retrospective or Prospective Application of SDCL 35-4-78(2) and Walz) and issue 3. (Effective Date of SDCL 35-11-1 and amended SDCL 35-4-78 and Retroactive Application) of the majority opinion. This requires a reversal of the judgment of the trial court. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to discuss the other issues in the majority and dissenting opinions. This court will review a law’s constitutionality only when necessary for a determination upon the merits of a cause. Investigation of Hy. Const. Ind. v. Bartholow, 373 N.W.2d 419, 420 (S.D.1985); State v. Big Head, 363 N.W.2d 556, 559 (S.D.1985); Baldwin v. First Nat. Bank of Black Hills, 362 N.W.2d 85, 90 (S.D.1985).