The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ronald Peter Clemensen on multiple counts of theft by exploitation of his elderly mother, rejecting his appeals challenging the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions.
The case, *State v. Clemensen* (S.D. 2025), centered on allegations that Clemensen exploited his elderly mother Betty's assets to cover debts from his failing business. According to court records, the charges related to Clemensen mortgaging family farm ground to obtain loan proceeds and using funds transferred from his mother's investment account.
The family farm in Spink County consisted of approximately 1,440 acres owned by Arlo and Betty Clemensen. Over the years, Betty maintained the home while Arlo operated the farm and handled their finances. The couple raised two children: Ronald and Patrice "Patti" Clemensen. Patti had three sons: Brent, Brad, and Brock Klapperich. Ronald remained unmarried and had no children.
At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Clemensen exploited his elderly mother's financial resources when his business encountered difficulties. The charges specifically involved his mortgaging of the family farm property to secure loan proceeds, as well as his unauthorized use of funds from Betty's investment accounts. The prosecution argued these actions constituted theft by exploitation under South Dakota law.
Clemensen's defense strategy included asserting a good faith defense, arguing that his actions were justified and that he lacked criminal intent. However, after considering the evidence presented at trial, the jury found Clemensen guilty on all counts of theft by exploitation.
On appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, Clemensen raised two primary challenges to his conviction. First, he argued the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove all elements of the crimes charged. Specifically, Clemensen contended the prosecution did not adequately establish that his conduct met the legal requirements for theft by exploitation under state law.
Second, Clemensen alleged the circuit court committed error in its jury instructions regarding his good faith defense. He argued the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the legal standards governing good faith defenses in elder exploitation cases, potentially prejudicing his case.
The South Dakota Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Devaney, rejected both of Clemensen's appellate arguments. The high court found the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict on all counts. The court determined that the prosecution had adequately proven each element of theft by exploitation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Regarding the jury instruction challenge, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court properly instructed the jury on the good faith defense standards. The court found no error in how the trial judge presented the legal framework for evaluating Clemensen's claimed good faith defense.
The case was heard by the Honorable Robert L. Spears, a retired judge, in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Spink County. Attorney General Marty J. Jackley and Assistant Attorney General Erin E. Handke represented the state. Clemensen was represented by attorneys Casey N. Bridgman of Wessington Springs and William D. Gerdes of Aberdeen.
Elder financial exploitation cases have become increasingly prevalent as South Dakota's aging population grows. These cases typically involve family members or caregivers who abuse their position of trust to access elderly individuals' financial resources without proper authorization.
The conviction in this case demonstrates the state's commitment to prosecuting elder financial abuse, particularly in cases involving family farm properties that often represent significant generational wealth. Farm families face unique vulnerabilities when adult children gain access to agricultural assets and financial accounts.
The Supreme Court's affirmance of Clemensen's conviction reinforces legal protections for elderly individuals against financial exploitation by family members. The ruling clarifies that good faith defenses in elder exploitation cases must meet strict legal standards and cannot excuse unauthorized use of elderly persons' assets.
The case also highlights the importance of proper financial safeguards and oversight in family farming operations, particularly when elderly family members retain ownership of substantial agricultural assets. Legal experts recommend families establish clear documentation and oversight mechanisms to prevent potential exploitation.
Clemensen's conviction serves as a warning to other family members who might consider accessing elderly relatives' financial resources without proper authorization, even in cases of business difficulties or financial distress. The criminal penalties for elder financial exploitation can include significant jail time and restitution requirements.
The Supreme Court considered the case on briefs submitted Aug. 26, 2025, and issued its opinion Nov. 25, 2025. The unanimous affirmance sends a clear message about the court's commitment to upholding convictions in elder financial abuse cases when supported by sufficient evidence.