reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
SD Codified L § 19-19-614 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-614 - Court's calling or examining a witness.

19-19-614. Court's calling or examining a witness.(a) Calling. The court may call a witness on its own or at a party's request. Each party is entitled to cross-examine the witness.(b) Examining. The court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the witness.(c) Objections. A party may object to the court's calling or examining a witness either at that time or at the next opportunity when the jury is not present. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 614); SDCL §§19-14-26 to 19-14-28; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-47), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-615 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-615 - Excluding witnesses.

19-19-615. Excluding witnesses.At a party's request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding:(a)A party who is a natural person;(b)An officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated as the party's representative by its attorney;(c)A person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party's claim or defense;(d)A person authorized by statute to be present; or(e)A victim of a crime and his parent or guardian following the victim's testimony. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 615); SL 1986, ch 193, §4; SDCL §19-14-29; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-48), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-701 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-701 - Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.

19-19-701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:(a)Rationally based on the witness's perception;(b)Helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and(c)Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of §19-19-702. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 701); SL 2011, ch 234 (Supreme Court Rule 10-10); SDCL §19-15-1; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-49), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-702 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-702 - Testimony by expert.

19-19-702. Testimony by expert.A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:(a)The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;(b)The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;(c)The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and(d)The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 702); SL 2011, ch 235 (Supreme Court Rule 10-11); SDCL §19-15-2; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-50), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-703 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-703 - Bases of opinion testimony by experts.

19-19-703. Bases of opinion testimony by experts.An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 703); SL 2011, ch 236 (Supreme Court Rule 10-12); SDCL §19-15-3; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-51), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-704 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-704 - Opinion on an ultimate issue.

19-19-704. Opinion on an ultimate issue.An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. Source: SL 1993, ch 401 (Supreme Court Rule 93-18); SDCL §19-15-4; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-52), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-705 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-705 - Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.

19-19-705. Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion--and give the reasons for it--without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination. Source: SL 2011, ch 238 (Supreme Court Rule 10-14); SDCL §19-15-5; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-53), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-706 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-706 - Court-appointed expert witnesses.

19-19-706. Court-appointed expert witnesses.(a) Appointment process. On a party's motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act.(b) Expert's role. The court must inform the expert of the expert's duties. The court may do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate. The expert:(1)Must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;(2)May be deposed by any party;(3)May be called to testify by the court or any party; and(4)May be cross-examined by any party, including the party that called the expert.(c) Compensation. The expert is entitled to a reasonable compensation, as set by the court. The compensation is payable as follows:(1)In a criminal case or in a civil case involving just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, from any funds that are provided by law; and(2)In any other civil case, by the parties in the proportion and at the time that the court directs--and the compensation is then charged like other costs.(d) Disclosing the appointment to the jury. The court may authorize disclosure to the jury that the court appointed the expert.(e) Parties' choice of their own experts. This rule does not limit a party in calling its own experts. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 706); SDCL §§19-15-9 to 19-15-17; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-54), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-707 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-707 - Experts called by parties.

19-19-707. Experts called by parties.(a) Limitation on number called. The provisions of §19-19-706 shall not preclude any party to either a criminal or civil proceeding from calling expert witnesses, but the court may impose reasonable limitations upon the number of witnesses so called.(b) Compensation. The fee of an expert witness called by a party but not appointed by the court shall be paid by the party by whom he was called, and the amount of such fee shall be disclosed if requested upon cross-examination. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 707); SDCL §§19-15-18, 19-15-19.
SD Codified L § 19-19-801 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-801 - Definitions that apply to this article--Exclusions from hearsay.

19-19-801. Definitions that apply to this article--Exclusions from hearsay.The following definitions apply under this article:(a)Statement. "Statement" means a person's oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.(b)Declarant. "Declarant" means the person who made the statement.(c)Hearsay. "Hearsay" means a statement that:(1)The declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and(2)A party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.(d)Statements that are not hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:(1)A declarant-witness's prior statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:(A)Is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;(B)Is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or(C)Identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.(2)An opposing party's statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:(A)Was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;(B)Is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;(C)Was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;(D)Was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or(E)Was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant's authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 801); SDCL §§19-16-1 to 19-16-3; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-55), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-802 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-802 - Rule against hearsay.

19-19-802. Rule against hearsay.Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provide otherwise:(1)A statute;(2)These rules; or(3)Other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 802); SDCL §19-16-4; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-56), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-803.1 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-803.1 - Physician's written report in lieu of deposition or in-court testimony admissible.

19-19-803.1. Physician's written report in lieu of deposition or in-court testimony admissible.A report submitted by a party pursuant to §19-19-803.2 is not excluded by §19-19-802, even though the physician is available as a witness. Source: SL 1984, ch 363 (Supreme Court Rule 84-9); SDCL §19-16-8.1.
SD Codified L § 19-19-803.2 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-803.2 - Physician's written report--Affidavit--Notice--Objection.

19-19-803.2. Physician's written report--Affidavit--Notice--Objection.In personal injury and wrongful death cases if the prayer for relief does not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars and in worker's compensation proceedings, the written report of any practitioner of the healing arts as defined in chapter 36-2 may be used for all purposes in lieu of deposition or in-court testimony of such practitioner of the healing arts provided that the report so offered into evidence has attached to it an affidavit signed by the practitioner of the healing arts issuing such report which verifies that the report constitutes all of his report, and that if called upon to testify he would testify to the same facts, observations, conclusions, opinions, and other matters as set forth in such report with reasonable medical probability. The affidavit shall include or incorporate an attached exhibit by reference the qualifications of the practitioner of the healing arts whose report is being offered.The report is not admissible unless the party offering it gives notice to all other parties of his intention to offer such report at least thirty days in advance of trial. Such notice shall be given to all parties together with a copy of any reports which are intended to be offered.Any party may object to the receipt into evidence at trial of such report or any portion thereof on any legal ground other than hearsay. Nothing in this section restricts any party from deposing the practitioner of the healing arts whose report is sought to be offered or otherwise conducting discovery or calling such practitioner as a witness at trial. Source: SL 1984, ch 355 (Supreme Court Rule 84-1); SL 1990, ch 153; SL 1998, ch 331; SDCL §19-16-8.2.
SD Codified L § 19-19-805 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-805 - Hearsay within hearsay.

19-19-805. Hearsay within hearsay.Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 805); SDCL §19-16-36; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-59), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-806 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-806 - Attacking and supporting the declarant.

19-19-806. Attacking and supporting the declarant.When a hearsay statement--or a statement described in subdivision 19-19-801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E)--has been admitted in evidence, the declarant's credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant's inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 806); SDCL §19-16-37; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-60), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-806.1 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-806.1 - Statement by child under age thirteen or child with developmental disability regarding sex crime, physical abuse, or neglect.

19-19-806.1. Statement by child under age thirteen or child with developmental disability regarding sex crime, physical abuse, or neglect.A statement made by a child under the age of thirteen, or by a child thirteen years of age or older who is developmentally disabled as defined in §27B-1-18, describing any act of sexual contact or rape performed with or on the child by another, or describing any act of physical abuse or neglect of the child by another, or any act of physical abuse or neglect of another child observed by the child making the statement, not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, is admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings against the defendant or in any proceeding under chapters 26-7A, 26-8A, 26-8B, and 26-8C in the courts of this state if:(1)The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and(2)The child either:(a)Testifies at the proceedings; or(b)Is unavailable as a witness.However, if the child is unavailable as a witness, such statement may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the act.No statement may be admitted under this section unless the proponent of the statement makes known the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement. Source: SL 1984, ch 155; SL 1985, ch 166; SL 1987, ch 157; SL 1992, ch 154, §2; SL 2009, ch 107, §1; SDCL §19-16-38.
SD Codified L § 19-19-806.2 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-806.2 - Statements alleging child abuse or neglect.

19-19-806.2. Statements alleging child abuse or neglect.An out-of-court statement not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of evidence is admissible in evidence in any civil proceeding alleging child abuse or neglect or any proceeding for termination of parental rights if:(1)The statement was made by a child under the age of thirteen years or by a child thirteen years of age or older who is developmentally disabled, as defined in §27B-1-18;(2)The statement alleges, explains, denies, or describes:(a)Any act of sexual penetration or contact performed with or on the child;(b)Any act of sexual penetration or contact with or on another child observed by the child making the statement;(c)Any act of physical abuse or neglect of the child by another; or(d)Any act of physical abuse or neglect of another child observed by the child making the statement;(3)The court finds that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement and the reliability of the person to whom the statement is made provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and(4)The proponent of the statement notifies other parties of an intent to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceeding at which the proponent intends to offer the statement into evidence, to provide the parties with a fair opportunity to meet the statement.For purposes of this section, an out-of-court statement includes a video, audio, or other recorded statement. Source: SL 1992, ch 154, §1; SL 2011, ch 110, §1; SDCL §19-16-39.
SD Codified L § 19-19-807 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-807 - Residual exception.

19-19-807. Residual exception.(a) In general. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in §19-19-803 or 19-19-804.(1)The statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;(2)It is offered as evidence of a material fact;(3)It is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts, and(4)Admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant's name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it. Source: SL 2011, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 10-15); SDCL §19-16-40; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-61), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-901 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-901 - Authenticating or identifying evidence.

19-19-901. Authenticating or identifying evidence.(a) In general. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.(b) Examples. The following are examples only--not a complete list--of evidence that satisfies the requirement:(1)Testimony of a witness with knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.(2)Nonexpert opinion about handwriting. A nonexpert's opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.(3)Comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.(4)Distinctive characteristics and the like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.(5)Opinion about a voice. An opinion identifying a person's voice--whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording--based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.(6)Evidence about a telephone conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:(A)A particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answering was the one called; or(B)A particular business, if the call was made to a business and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.(7)Evidence about public records. Evidence that:(A)A document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or(B)A purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.(8)Evidence about ancient documents or data compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:(A)Is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;(B)Was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and(C)Is at least 20 years old when offered.(9)Evidence about a process or system. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.(10)Methods provided by a statute or rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by a state statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 901); SDCL §19-17-1; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-62), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-903 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-903 - Subscribing witnesses.

19-19-903. Subscribing witnesses.A subscribing witness's testimony is necessary to authenticate a writing only if required by the law of the jurisdiction that governs its validity. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 903); SDCL §19-17-12; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-64), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.