Opinion ID: 1708276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Misconduct by Court and Counsel

Text: McGladrey argues that conduct on the part of Counsel for Lien and Circuit Judge Fitzgerald constituted prejudicial error. According to McGladrey, Lien's counsel asked unfair leading questions of Lien's expert and factually unsupported questions in cross-examination of McGladrey's expert and Judge Fitzgerald erroneously interrogated McGladrey's witnesses and improperly commented on a material fact at issue. While we agree that Judge Fitzgerald may have temporarily lost sight of his role in this proceeding (that of judge rather than advocate of a client's interests), the record indicates that McGladrey's counsel failed to object to either Judge Fitzgerald's or Lien's counsel's interrogation of their expert witness. [S]uch objections must be made to the trial court in order to allow it to correct its mistakes, and an objection not properly raised below cannot be reviewed by this court on appeal. Anderson v. Johnson, 441 N.W.2d 675, 677 (S.D.1989) (citations omitted). Additionally, Jury Instruction No. 3 could have corrected any prejudicial effect Judge Fitzgerald's questioning may have had upon the jury. [5] McGladrey has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error. We affirm all issues except issue 4, which we reverse and remand for a proper determination of damages. MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON, J., concur. WUEST, J., concurs specially. HENDERSON, J., dissents.