My question is about Supreme Court of South Dakota on appeal, filed number # 26455 20, 2013, considered on Briefs; in the July 17,2013, Opinion filed: Stated on claim that was made Statement from Supreme Court Judge that said on information in appendix (A) on pages 7,8,9,13,14,15 and 16 are Stated in the underline, where C.I. have made a lot of claim of First-degree rape and sexual contact and the Supreme court Judge found out that upon completion of the forensic interview, C.I. was Physically examined by a physician and examination did NOT reveal any signs of Physical injury or abuse and false clain and this call "FALSE CONVICTIONS "? C.I. claim that Brende's made him/C.I. put his penis in Brende's butt on sexual contact conviction(s), but during an Forensic interview, C.I. have testified that Brende's NEVER made C.I. put his penis in Brende's butt and is this call PERJURY from C.I.

Then the Supreme Court of South Dakota made an claim on page 9 [15] in small print, underline (7) Stated "SPECIFICALLT ", count one and count two of the indictment are IDENTICAL and alleged the same and this call DOUBLE JEOPARDY against Minister Brende, Steven A.on

Whether the Supreme Court of South Dakota erred in its July 17, 2013 decision