## Facts

- South Dakota statutes authorized the Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GF&P) to adopt hunting regulations governing the taking and possession of game, permitted hunting methods and devices, and the maximum number of persons allowed to hunt together as a cooperative group.
- The Legislature made violation of any “substantive provision” of GF&P regulations a misdemeanor.
- William R. Moschell operated a hunting guide service; Gene T. Smith and Denis K. Moschell were associated with the operation.
- GF&P officers suspected recurring violations of hunting laws but could not confirm them through ordinary enforcement methods.
- GF&P used two out-of-state conservation officers as undercover agents from October 1999 to December 2000.
- The undercover agents participated in multiple hunts organized or guided by defendants and observed practices alleged to violate GF&P rules, including coordinated group pheasant hunts exceeding permitted group limits and use of radios for coordination.
- Based on the investigation, defendants were charged with multiple misdemeanor counts for violations of GF&P regulations and were convicted by a jury on various counts.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the statutory and regulatory scheme and aspects of trial and sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether authorizing GF&P to promulgate hunting regulations and criminalizing substantive violations of those regulations constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power under the state separation-of-powers doctrine.
2. Whether certain hunting statutes and GF&P regulations were unconstitutionally vague.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
4. Whether the jury instructions misstated the law or prejudiced defendants.
5. Whether the probation conditions imposed were unreasonable or unlawful.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the convictions and the trial court’s rulings on all issues.
- The court held the legislative delegation to GF&P was constitutional and supported by sufficient standards; the Legislature, not the agency, defined the criminal offense by making violations of substantive rules misdemeanors.
- The court rejected vagueness challenges, concluding the statutes and regulations provided adequate notice and enforceable standards.
- The court held the undercover evidence, viewed favorably to the verdict, permitted a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions when read as a whole.
- The court upheld the probation conditions as within the sentencing court’s discretion and reasonably related to sentencing purposes.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may delegate rulemaking authority to an administrative agency when it sets the general policy and supplies sufficient standards and limits to guide the agency’s discretion.
- A statutory scheme does not violate nondelegation principles merely because the legislature makes violation of agency rules a misdemeanor; the agency may supply implementation details within legislatively defined bounds.
- A law is void for vagueness only if persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning or if it permits arbitrary enforcement; mathematical certainty is not required.
- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and affirm if a rational factfinder could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole for whether they fairly and accurately state the law and whether any error was prejudicial.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed misdemeanor convictions arising from violations of hunting regulations, holding that the Legislature validly delegated regulatory detail to GF&P while itself criminalizing substantive violations, and that the challenged provisions were sufficiently definite, the evidence supported the verdicts, the instructions were proper, and the probation terms were reasonable.


State v. Moschell, 677 N.W.2d 551 (S.D. 2004)