Opinion ID: 1913355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Precluding the City of Sioux Falls from bringing in its side of the case on the wetlands issue.

Text: It appears that there existed a paramount issue concerning wetlands. During oral argument in this Court, one of Kelleys' attorneys expressed: The City said this land was wetlands. Much of the lawsuit was tried over wetlands. And, per Kelleys' attorney, the City lost the battle. Issue 9, raised by the City of Sioux Falls' brief, focuses on this issue and explains that the trial court was very unfair in permitting Kelleys' version to get before the jury but refused to allow the City of Sioux Falls to get its points across on wetlands. Again, we witness prejudicial error. Shaull, 327 N.W.2d at 53. An environmental consultant testified, at great length, on the wetlands issue for the Kelleys. When the City attempted to call its expert to the stand, Jim Oehlerking of the Omaha District Corps of Engineers, Kelleys objected to his testimony. Thereupon, the trial court restricted the City from fully presenting Oehlerking's testimony. City of Sioux Falls attempted to refute Miller's testimony. Trial court refused to permit the City from asking questions, and eliciting evidence which had probative value on the issues in the case. Due to bureaucratic folderol, the City of Sioux Falls had a great deal of trouble in having an employee of the Corps of Engineers testify in this case. It is axiomatic that a jury should hear both sides of a case. Facts do not cease to exist by simply ignoring them. It is true that a trial court has discretion in admitting the opinion of an expert. SDCL 19-15-2; Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816 (S.D.1991). However, a trial court can abuse its discretion in such a ruling. There was skirmishing to preclude Oehlerking from testifying. After this litigation was commenced, both counsel for the City and Kelleys had informally consulted with Oehlerking about the wetlands issue. Therefore, there was certainly no surprise to the Kelleys. City had the right to present its side of the case, through this witness, on the wetlands issue. Precluding the City from bringing in its side of the case prejudiced its right to have a fair trial. Testimony of Oehlerking would have aided the jury in deciding one of the major issues in this case. As counsel for Kelleys argued before this Court at the State Capitol, Much of the lawsuit was tried over wetlands. In my opinion, the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting the City of Sioux Falls to present its case on the wetlands issue and requires reversal. Shamburger v. Behrens, 380 N.W.2d 659 (S.D.1986). It was a paramount issue in this jury trial. This evidentiary error was dynamite against the City of Sioux Falls and this Court should not tolerate such an abuse to any litigant. Prejudicial error is that which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the final result and affected the rights of a party assigning it. K & E Land and Cattle, Inc. v. Mayer, 330 N.W.2d 529 (S.D.1983). This was a unanimous decision, authored by this special writer, a decade ago. Justice must be even-handed. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.