The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court's denial of Soloman B. Longchase's motion to dismiss his criminal indictment based on alleged speedy trial violations. The case, decided November 5, 2025, also addressed constitutional challenges to court orders requiring defendants to reimburse counties for appointed counsel costs.
Longchase faced five criminal charges stemming from conduct that occurred on August 20, 2022. The Hyde County State's Attorney filed the criminal complaint on September 21, 2022, charging Longchase with aggravated assault (domestic), aggravated kidnapping, grand theft, interference with emergency communication, and false impersonation to deceive law enforcement.
The state's attorney requested an arrest warrant the same day the complaint was filed, and the circuit court issued the warrant the following day. The warrant indicated Longchase's last known location as the Hughes County Jail, where he was being held on unrelated Hughes County charges.
The procedural timeline became central to Longchase's speedy trial challenge. His legal team, led by Justin L. Bell of May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson LLP, argued that delays in the case violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. The circuit court, presided over by Judge Margo D. Northrup of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, denied Longchase's motion to dismiss.
The case reached the South Dakota Supreme Court through appeal, with the state represented by Attorney General Marty J. Jackley and Assistant Attorney General Erin E. Handke. The high court considered the matter on briefs submitted October 7, 2025, before issuing its opinion affirming the lower court's decision.
Justice Salter authored the opinion for the South Dakota Supreme Court, which examined both the speedy trial claim and the constitutional challenge to attorney fee reimbursement requirements. The court's analysis focused on established precedent regarding what constitutes unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings and the factors courts must weigh when evaluating speedy trial violations.
The speedy trial guarantee, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution, protects defendants from prolonged uncertainty and potential prejudice that can arise from extended delays between charges and trial. Courts typically evaluate four factors when assessing speedy trial claims: the length of delay, the reason for delay, whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay.
Longchase's case also raised questions about the constitutionality of requiring defendants to reimburse counties for court-appointed attorney fees. This practice has become increasingly common as jurisdictions seek to manage rising costs associated with providing constitutionally mandated legal representation to indigent defendants.
The constitutional challenge centers on whether such reimbursement requirements create an improper barrier to the right to counsel or constitute an unconstitutional condition on receiving appointed counsel. Defense attorneys argue that requiring defendants to pay back attorney fees can deter individuals from exercising their constitutional rights or create financial hardship that effectively punishes defendants for asserting their right to counsel.
The case reflects broader tensions in the criminal justice system between ensuring constitutional protections and managing limited public resources. Courts must balance defendants' fundamental rights with practical considerations about funding adequate legal representation and managing court systems efficiently.
Hyde County, where the charges were filed, is a rural jurisdiction in central South Dakota. The case involved multiple jurisdictions, as Longchase was initially held in Hughes County on separate charges when the Hyde County warrant was issued. This multi-jurisdictional aspect may have contributed to timing issues that formed part of the speedy trial analysis.
The South Dakota Supreme Court's affirmation of the circuit court's decision establishes precedent for how similar cases will be evaluated in the state. The ruling provides guidance for trial courts assessing speedy trial motions and clarifies the constitutional parameters surrounding attorney fee reimbursement requirements.
For defendants facing similar circumstances, the decision underscores the high bar for establishing speedy trial violations. Courts generally require clear evidence of unreasonable delay and demonstrable prejudice to the defendant's case or circumstances.
The case number #30944-a-MES reflects the South Dakota Supreme Court's internal case management system. The opinion, designated 2025 S.D. 61, becomes part of the state's official legal precedent and will guide future decisions involving comparable legal questions.
Longchase's legal team must now determine whether to pursue further appeals or focus on defending against the underlying criminal charges in the trial court. The criminal case will proceed through the normal course of litigation, with the speedy trial challenge resolved against the defendant.