Revise certain provisions related to sexual contact with a child under sixteen.
HB1128 revises South Dakota’s criminal statutes governing sexual contact with minors. The bill keeps the core offense in § 22-22-7 as a Class 3 felony for a person age 16 or older who knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person under age 16, but it adds a narrower exception: if the victim is at least 13 and the actor is less than five years older than the victim, the offense is reduced to a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill also changes the limitations period so a prosecution may be commenced until the victim turns 25 or within seven years of the offense, whichever is longer.
The bill also amends the statutory definition of “sexual contact” in § 22-22-7.1. It preserves the existing definition covering touching of breasts, genitalia, or anus with sexual intent, and for purposes of § 22-22-7 it expands the definition to include touching of the buttocks or upper inner thighs with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. The bill retains the exclusion for lawful practitioners of the healing arts acting within the scope of practice and clarifies that the court must determine that issue before trial.
In practical terms, the bill would affect criminal liability, charging decisions, and prosecution timelines in child sexual contact cases. It would create a close-in-age misdemeanor exception for certain teenage conduct, broaden the conduct covered by the offense for that section, and extend the time available to bring charges in these cases. These changes would directly affect prosecutors, defendants, victims, and courts applying South Dakota’s sexual offense laws.
The available legislative history shows little recorded debate, but the bill was tabled on a 13-0 vote in committee, suggesting unanimous reluctance to advance it at that stage. Because there are no committee transcripts, the specific reasons for tabling are not documented in the provided materials. The overall sentiment from the vote is neutral-to-negative toward moving the bill forward, at least in committee.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between protecting minors and creating a close-in-age exception for adolescents, as well as the expansion of the definition of sexual contact to include buttocks and upper inner thigh touching. Another likely issue is the extended statute of limitations, which may be viewed as helping victims by allowing more time to report, but also as increasing long-term exposure to prosecution for accused persons.
HB1128 would amend South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 22-22-7 and 22-22-7.1, changing both the elements and penalties for sexual contact with minors. It would create a misdemeanor exception for certain age-close conduct, expand the statutory definition of sexual contact for purposes of § 22-22-7, and extend the limitations period for prosecution. The bill would affect criminal defendants, prosecutors, victims, and courts handling child sexual contact cases.
The only recorded vote was a 13-0 tabling motion, indicating unanimous committee support for setting the bill aside rather than advancing it. With no committee transcript available, there is no detailed public record of debate, but the vote suggests the bill did not have momentum in committee. Overall sentiment in the available record appears cautious or unfavorable toward moving the proposal forward.
The likely areas of disagreement are the close-in-age misdemeanor exception, which could be seen as either a sensible distinction for teenage conduct or an inappropriate softening of penalties for sexual contact with minors; the broadened definition of sexual contact, which expands criminal exposure; and the extended time for prosecution, which may be supported by victim advocates but opposed by those concerned about fairness and stale evidence. Because no transcripts are provided, the specific sponsors or opponents of these views are not identified in the record.