Opinion ID: 1913355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the trial court err when it restricted objections to depositions read at trial to only those objections made at the time the depositions were taken?

Text: City argues that the trial court erred in restricting objections to depositions read at trial to only those made at the time the depositions were taken. The trial court's evidentiary rulings are presumed correct and will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 820 (S.D.1991); Zepp v. Hofmann, 444 N.W.2d 28, 31 (S.D.1989). An `abuse of discretion' refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by and clearly against reason and evidence. Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4, 7 (S.D.1984). City claims the trial court limited its ability to object to the deposition testimony. However, the record indicates that City was given an opportunity to raise additional objections to the depositions before they were read to the jury. The trial court ruled on these objections and City has not appealed any of these rulings. City does not point to any specific instances in which the trial court abused its discretion or committed error. The party alleging error on appeal must show such error affirmatively by the record and not only must the error be demonstrated but it must also be shown to be prejudicial error. Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251 (S.D.1976). Prejudicial error is error which in all probability must have produced some effect upon the final result of the trial. State Highway Commission v. Beets, 88 S.D. 536, 224 N.W.2d 567 (1974). Prejudicial error is that without which the jury would have probably returned a different verdict. Shaull, 327 N.W.2d 50. City has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error relating the deposition testimony.