(specially concurring).
Due to the paucity of facts in the majority opinion, to oblige the reader with the background of this case for a better understanding, the facts are supplemented by this writing.
*396• Rock Valley, Iowa is approximately 20 miles straight east of Fairview, South Dakota where Dorhout operates a farm implement dealership with sales of approximately $4 million per year.
• Complaints were filed with the South Dakota taxing officials, that Dorhout was making substantial sales to South Dakota residents and was not paying sales tax.
• An investigation conducted by the Department of Revenue of this state determined that Dorhout had sold farm machinery to South Dakota farmers, these South Dakota farmers being principally located along the South Dakota/Iowa border.
• Dorhout was informed by telephone and correspondence that he was liable for sales tax of farm equipment.
• Notwithstanding an attempt to educate Dorhout as to his tax responsibility, both by phone calls and correspondence of the South Dakota taxing authorities, Dorhout paid no sales tax.
• In fact, Dorhout testily told the taxation authorities of South Dakota that there was no way that South Dakota could trace the sales made into South Dakota.
• Dorhout, when confronted with evidence, admitted to a $30,000 sale in South Dakota.
• Having secured a sales tax license in this state, Dorhout began to file, in South Dakota, zero returns, reflecting that he had no sales in South Dakota. Further investigation took place. Dorhout admitted to having three customers in South Dakota.
• After further investigation, numerous other delivered sales to South Dakota were uncovered.
• Numerous exhibits were submitted to a grand jury; Exhibits 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 *, and 21 all reflected sales to South Dakota residents, which were presented to the grand jury.
• Evidence produced reflected Dorhout’s salesmen being in the state of South Dakota. Dorhout, himself, was personally observed in South Dakota with a red Town and Country Implement pickup truck.
• Dorhout extensively advertised his business in South Dakota through newspapers, radio, and television. As a result of a thorough investigation of Dorhout’s business activities in South Dakota, documented by specific items sold such as a cultivator, disc mower, tractors, and planter, the taxing authorities saw fit to bring criminal charges against Dorhout.
When the trial court granted its Motion for Dismissal, the trial court had a grand jury transcript available, together with exhibits presented to the grand jury. Let there be no mistake that the trial court had an extensive factual background when the decision was made to dismiss this case. Essentially, the trial court’s decision on January 21,1993, held that Dorhout was (1) subject to use tax and not sales tax and (2) a new point of law was being lodged against Dorhout.
Under SDCL 10-45-1(6), there is certainly a jury question as to whether Dorhout is a retailer.
Under SDCL 10-45-1(8), there is a jury question as to whether Dorhout made any sales within the State of South Dakota.
Each criminal allegation of an avoidance of a sales tax must be tried below, in a jury case, if Dorhout demands a jury trial. One of the key questions therein will be: Did delivery take place in South Dakota? This is also known as “the point of possession” rule. See In re Royal Plastics, 471 N.W.2d 582, 585-86 (S.D.1991).
Reviewing Sturtz v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 373 N.W.2d 131, 132 (Iowa 1985), it appears that the definition of sale in Iowa is identical to the definition of sale in South Dakota. In Sturtz, 373 N.W.2d at 133-134, the Supreme Court of Iowa discussed sale and delivery. In Iowa, the place of delivery is the key in determining where the sale occurred and sales tax to be applied. This appears to be the same focus as this Court had in Royal Plastics.
Dorhout’s contention that he was not subject to sales tax but was subject to use tax *397provisions of SDCL ch. 10-46, appears to be, under the facts cited aboye, a mistake of law. Permann v. Dept. of Labor, 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D.1987). However, I caution that Dorhout is still entitled to a fair trial, before a jury, to have all of the facts brought out. In South Dakota, the use tax was passed by our Legislature to complement the sales tax, not to displace it. Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Gillis, 82 S.D. 457, 148 N.W.2d 293, 298 (1967). Reading SDCL 10-46-6, it becomes quite obvious that if there exists a retail sale under Chapter 10-45, Chapter 10-46 does not apply. See Gillis, 148 N.W.2d at 298. See also Pioneer Markets, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 85 S.D. 24, 176 N.W.2d 477 (1970).
Explicitly, the trial court ruled that “Dorh-out’ did not have fair warning that his conduct was criminal” and, also, that “Dorhout could not have ascertained the legal standards applicable to his conduct.” (Emphasis supplied mine.)
First of all, he is essentially arguing that the statutes are vague and uncertain and, therefore, a crime has not been statutorily defined with definiteness and certainty. Dorhout was charged with filing a false or fraudulent return in attempting to escape or evade sales tax under SDCL 10-45-48.1(1). Bear in mind that this defendant was explained the South Dakota sales tax law on several occasions. He is now trying to tell us that he has a legitimate defense because he is ignorant of the law. Reference is made to State v. Dale, 439 N.W.2d 98 (S.D.1989). Therein, at page 107, citing State v. Martin, 85 S.D. 587, 187 N.W.2d 576 (1971), we expressed:
The court determined that it was incumbent upon the defendant, if he does not understand the law, to learn its content and meaning. The law charges every man with the knowledge of the standards prescribed by the law. (Emphasis supplied mine.)
Thus, I join in reversing the trial court’s granting Dorhout’s Motion to Dismiss for the rationale set forth in this writing.
Exhibit 20, as an example, was an invoice for a $2,200 bean head sold to Norman Uherka of Wagner, South Dakota. The invoice also reflects a $25.00 charge for delivery.