reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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 state correctional facility, correctional facility 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 state correctional facility, correctional facility 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 state correctional facility may personally waive the privilege described in this section.
Source: SL 2008, ch 117, §41; SDCL §19-13-33; SL 2023, ch 82, §7.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 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 conditions, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not admissible under a hearsay exception in §19-19-803 or 19-19-804.
(1)The statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness--after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the statement; and
(2)It is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.
(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement--including its substance and the declarant's name--so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it. The notice must be provided in writing before the trial or hearing--or in any form during the trial or hearing if the court, for good cause, excuses a lack of earlier notice.
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; SL 2022, ch 252 (Supreme Court Rule 21-11), eff. Jan. 1, 2022.
2023 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.
2023 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.
2023 South Dakota Codified Laws › Title 19 - Evidence › Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence › Section 19-19-1001 - Definitions that apply to this article.

19-19-1001. Definitions that apply to this article.
(a) A "writing" consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form.
(b) A "recording" consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded in any manner.
(c) A "photograph" means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form.
(d) An "original" of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, "original" means any printout--or other output readable by sight--if it accurately reflects the information. An "original" of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it.
(e) A "duplicate" means a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original.
(f) "TDD," or "TTY," any auxiliary aids or services consisting of assistive listening or transcription systems which allow the reception or transmission of aurally delivered communication and materials for the benefit of individuals with hearing, speech, or physical impairments.
Source:
SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 1001); SL 1993, ch 168, §1; SDCL §19-18-1; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-65), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.
2023 South Dakota Codified Laws › Title 19 - Evidence › Chapter 19 - South Dakota Rules of Evidence › Section 19-19-1002 - Requirement of the original.

19-19-1002. Requirement of the original.
An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless this chapter or rules adopted by the Supreme Court of this state, or a state statute provides otherwise.
Source:
SL 1979, ch 358 (Supreme Court Rule 78-2, Rule 1002); SDCL §19-18-2; SL 2016, ch 239 (Supreme Court Rule 15-66), eff. Jan. 1, 2016.