reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
SD Codified L § 19-19-509 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-509 - Identity of informer.

19-19-509. Identity of informer.(a) Rule of privilege. The United States or a state or subdivision thereof has a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of a person who has furnished information relating to or assisting in an investigation of a possible violation of a law to a law enforcement officer or member of a legislative committee or its staff conducting an investigation.(b) Who may claim. The privilege may be claimed by an appropriate representative of the public entity to which the information was furnished.(c) Exceptions: (1)Voluntary disclosure; informer a witness. No privilege exists under this section if the identity of the informer or his interest in the subject matter of his communication has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication by a holder of the privilege or by the informer's own action, or if the informer appears as a witness for the government.(2)Testimony on relevant issue. If it appears in the case that an informer may be able to give testimony relevant to any issue in a criminal case or to a fair determination of a material issue on the merits in a civil case to which a public entity is a party, and the informed public entity invokes the privilege, the court shall give the public entity an opportunity to show in camera facts relevant to determining whether the informer can in fact, supply that testimony. The showing will ordinarily be in the form of affidavits, but the court may direct that testimony be taken if it finds that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily upon affidavit. If the court finds there is a reasonable probability that the informer can give the testimony, and the public entity elects not to disclose his identity, in criminal cases the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion shall grant appropriate relief, which may include one or more of the following:(A)Requiring the prosecuting attorney to comply; (B)Granting the defendant additional time or a continuance; (C)Relieving the defendant from making disclosures otherwise required of him; (D)Prohibiting the prosecuting attorney from introducing specified evidence; and (E)Dismissing charges. In civil cases, the court may make any order the interests of justice require. Evidence submitted to the court shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal, and the contents shall not otherwise be revealed without consent of the informed public entity. All counsel and parties are permitted to be present at every stage of proceedings under this subdivision except a showing in camera at which no counsel or party shall be permitted to be present.  Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 509); SDCL §§19-13-22 to 19-13-25.
SD Codified L § 19-19-510 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-510 - Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.

19-19-510. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.A person upon whom this chapter confers a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if he or his predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. This section does not apply if the disclosure itself is privileged. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 510); SDCL §19-13-26.
SD Codified L § 19-19-511 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-511 - Privilege not waived by involuntary disclosure.

19-19-511. Privilege not waived by involuntary disclosure.A claim of privilege is not defeated by a disclosure which was:(1)Compelled erroneously; or(2)Made without opportunity to claim the privilege. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 511); SDCL §19-13-27.
SD Codified L § 19-19-512 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-512 - Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege--Instruction.

19-19-512. Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege--Instruction.(a) Comment or inference not permitted. The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom.(b) Claiming privilege without knowledge of jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.(c) Jury instruction. Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 512); SDCL §§19-13-28, 19-13-29, 19-13-30.
SD Codified L § 19-19-513 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-513 - Motorist's refusal to submit to chemical test of intoxication admissible--Privilege against self-incrimination may not be claimed.

19-19-513. Motorist's refusal to submit to chemical test of intoxication admissible--Privilege against self-incrimination may not be claimed.Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 19-19-512(a), when a person stands trial for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as provided under §32-23-1, and that person has refused chemical analysis, as provided in §32-23-10, such refusal is admissible into evidence. Such person may not claim privilege against self-incrimination with regard to admission of refusal to submit to chemical analysis. Source: SL 1980, ch 230, §2; SDCL §19-13-28.1.
SD Codified L § 19-19-514 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-514 - Sign language interpreter or relay service operator privilege.

19-19-514. Sign language interpreter or relay service operator privilege.No sign language interpreter or relay service operator who has interpreted for or relayed information for a deaf, speech impaired, or hard of hearing person may be compelled to divulge or be examined as part of any proceeding concerning any information or communication given to him in his capacity as an interpreter or relay service operator if his client is otherwise accorded a privilege under this chapter. Source: SL 1991, ch 177, §2; SDCL §19-13-31; SL 2019, ch 8, §4.
SD Codified L § 19-19-515 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-515 - Mediation privilege.

19-19-515. Mediation privilege.All verbal or written information relating to the subject matter of a mediation which is transmitted between any party to a dispute and a mediator or any agent, employee, or representative of a party or a mediator is confidential. Any mediation proceeding shall be regarded as settlement negotiations, and no admission, representation, or statement made in mediation not otherwise discoverable is admissible as evidence or subject to discovery. A mediator is not subject to process requiring the disclosure of any material matter discussed during the mediation proceeding unless all the parties consent to a waiver. A meeting held to further the resolution of a dispute may be closed to the public at the discretion of the mediator. This section does not apply if a party brings an action against the mediator or if the communication was made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. This section does not apply to mediations conducted pursuant to chapter 25-4. Source: SL 1998, ch 112, §1; SDCL §19-13-32.
SD Codified L § 19-19-516 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-516 - Communications concerning execution of inmate.

19-19-516. Communications concerning execution of inmate.The secretary of corrections, the warden of the penitentiary, penitentiary staff, and Department of Corrections staff may not be examined as to communications made to them concerning an execution of an inmate under chapter 23A-27A. The privilege described in this section may be claimed by the secretary of corrections, the warden of the penitentiary, penitentiary staff, Department of Corrections staff, or by any representative of any of the foregoing to be examined and is binding on all of them. However, the secretary of corrections and the warden of the penitentiary may personally waive the privilege described in this section. Source: SL 2008, ch 117, §41; SDCL §19-13-33.
SD Codified L § 19-19-601 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-601 - Competency to testify in general.

19-19-601. Competency to testify in general.Every person is competent to be a witness unless otherwise provided in this chapter. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 601); SDCL §19-14-1; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-35), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-602 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-602 - Need for personal knowledge--Exception for expert opinion.

19-19-602. Need for personal knowledge--Exception for expert opinion.A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under §19-19-703. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 602); SDCL §19-14-2; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-36), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-603 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-603 - Oath or affirmation to testify truthfully.

19-19-603. Oath or affirmation to testify truthfully.Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness's conscience. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 603); SDCL §19-14-3; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-37), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-603.1 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-603.1 - Form for oath of witness.

19-19-603.1. Form for oath of witness.The following oath may be used to satisfy the requirements of §19-19-603:You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give relative to the matter in difference now in hearing between _____, plaintiff, and _____, defendant, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Source: SL 1979, ch 154, §6; SDCL §19-14-3.1.
SD Codified L § 19-19-603.2 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-603.2 - Form for affirmation of witness.

19-19-603.2. Form for affirmation of witness.The following affirmation may be used to satisfy the requirements of §19-19-603:You do solemnly affirm that the evidence you shall give relative to the matter in difference now in hearing between _____, plaintiff, and _____, defendant, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. Source: SL 1979, ch 154, §8; SDCL §19-14-3.2.
SD Codified L § 19-19-604 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-604 - Form for oath of interpreter.

19-19-604. Form for oath of interpreter.The following oath, as appropriate to the circumstances, may be used for an interpreter: I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will justly, truly and impartially interpret, to the best of my skill and judgment, and will make a true interpretation to any party or witness, the oath or affirmation administered in all matters; the questions which may be asked and the answers that shall be given to such questions and all statements relative to any [court proceedings, probation activities, or any other proceeding] under consideration in which I am employed to interpret, so help me God (under the pains and penalties of perjury). Source: SL 1979, ch 154, §10; SL 2012, ch 115, §3; SDCL §19-14-4.1.
SD Codified L § 19-19-605 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-605 - Judge's competency as a witness.

19-19-605. Judge's competency as a witness.The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve the issue. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 605); SDCL §19-14-5; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-38), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-606 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-606 - Juror's competency as a witness.

19-19-606. Juror's competency as a witness.(a) At the trial. A juror may not testify as a witness before the other jurors at the trial. If a juror is called to testify, the court must give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury's presence.(b) During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment.(1)Prohibited testimony or other evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror's affidavit or evidence of a juror's statement on these matters.(2)Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:(A)Extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention;(B)An outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or(C)A mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 606); SDCL §§19-14-6, 19-14-7; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-39), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-607 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-607 - Who may impeach a witness.

19-19-607. Who may impeach a witness.Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness's credibility. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 607); SDCL §19-14-8; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-40), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-608 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-608 - A witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

19-19-608. A witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.(a) Reputation or opinion evidence. A witness's credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.(b) Specific instances of conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under §19-19-609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:(1)The witness; or(2)Another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about.(c) Privilege against self-incrimination not waived by testimony on credibility. By testifying on another matter, a witness does not waive any privilege against self-incrimination for testimony that relates only to the witness's character for truthfulness. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 608); SDCL §§19-14-9 to 19-14-11; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-41), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-609 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-609 - Impeachment by evidence of a criminal conviction.

19-19-609. Impeachment by evidence of a criminal conviction.(a) In general. The following rules apply to attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction:(1)For a crime that, in the convicting jurisdiction, was punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year, the evidence:(A)Must be admitted, subject to §19-19-403, in a civil case or in a criminal case in which the witness is not a defendant; and(B)Must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant; and(2)For any crime regardless of the punishment, the evidence must be admitted if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving--or the witness's admitting--a dishonest act or false statement.(b) Limit on using the evidence after 10 years. This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness's conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only if:(1)Its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and(2)The proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.(c) Effect of a pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under subdivision (a) or (b) if:(1)The conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding that the person has been rehabilitated, and the person has not been convicted of a later crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year; or(2)The conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.(d) Juvenile adjudications. Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible under subdivision (a) only if:(1)It is offered in a criminal case;(2)The adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant;(3)An adult's conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult's credibility; and(4)Admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.(e) Pendency of an appeal. A conviction that satisfies this rule is admissible even if an appeal is pending. Evidence of the pendency is also admissible. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 609); SDCL §§19-14-12 to 19-14-16; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-42), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-610 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-610 - Religious beliefs or opinions.

19-19-610. Religious beliefs or opinions.Evidence of a witness's religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness's credibility. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 610); SDCL §19-14-17; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-43), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-611 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-611 - Mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence.

19-19-611. Mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence.(a) Control by the court; purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:(1)Make those procedures effective for determining the truth;(2)Avoid wasting time; and(3)Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.(b) Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:(1)On cross-examination; and(2)When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 611); SDCL §§19-14-18, 19-14-19, 19-14-20; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-44), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-611.1 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-611.1 - Address of witness--Release in open court restricted.

19-19-611.1. Address of witness--Release in open court restricted.The courts of the State of South Dakota shall not require that witnesses, at time of questioning in open court, release their specific addresses unless it is required by due process or is in the interest of justice. Source: SL 1985, ch 410 (Supreme Court Rule 85-5); SDCL §19-14-18.1.
SD Codified L § 19-19-612 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-612 - Writing used to refresh a witness's memory.

19-19-612. Writing used to refresh a witness's memory.(a) Scope. This section gives an adverse party certain options when a witness uses a writing to refresh memory:(1)While testifying; or(2)Before testifying, if the court decides that justice requires the party to have those options.(b) Adverse party's options; deleting unrelated matter. An adverse party entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing under subdivision (a) is entitled to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness about it, and to introduce in evidence any portion that relates to the witness's testimony. If the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party. Any portion deleted over objection must be preserved for the record.(c) Failure to produce or deliver the writing. If a writing is not produced or is not delivered as ordered under subdivision (a) or (b), the court may issue any appropriate order. But if the prosecution does not comply in a criminal case, the court must strike the witness's testimony or--if justice so requires--declare a mistrial. Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 612); SDCL §§19-14-21 to 19-14-23; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-45), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
SD Codified L § 19-19-613 (2021)
2021 South Dakota Codified Laws|Title 19 - Evidence|Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence|Section 19-19-613 - Witness's prior statement.

19-19-613. Witness's prior statement.(a) Showing or disclosing the statement during examination. When examining a witness about the witness's prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party's attorney.(b) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party's statement under subdivision 19-19-801(d)(2). Source: SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 613); SDCL §§19-14-24, 19-14-25; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-46), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.