Opinion ID: 1787175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Telephonic Testimony

Text: [¶ 15.] At the final dispositional hearing, the attorney for the Tribe offered the telephonic testimony of its own ICWA expert. The matter of the telephonic appearance was brought before the court for the first time on the morning of the hearing. The trial court refused to allow such an appearance, partly due to the difficulty in judging the credibility of telephonic testimony. Mother asserts that this refusal to allow telephonic testimony was error. [¶ 16.] Mother cites no authority for the premise that a trial court is required to allow telephonic testimony. She concedes that it was within the trial court's discretion to allow or exclude such testimony. The trial court's responsibility at a dispositional hearing is to consider evidence regarding proper disposition of the child best serving the interests of the child with due regard to the rights and interests of the child's parents, guardian, custodian, other parties respondent, the public and the state. SDCL 26-7A-90. Evidence at the dispositional phase may include social study reports, mental and medical examination and evaluation reports, homestudy investigation reports and any other evidence related to appropriate disposition of the child. Id. An expert's testimony can also be offered by deposition. SDCL 26-7A-79. [¶ 17.] Here the trial court's exclusion of the telephonic testimony of the Tribe's proposed expert was based on the untimeliness of the request and the court's legitimate concern over its ability to judge the credibility of the telephonic testimony. [2] Additionally, Mother does not indicate how she was prejudiced by the exclusion. The trial court has broad discretion to determine the mode and manner of witness' testimony and will be reversed only for abuse of that discretion. State v. Alidani, 2000 SD 52, ¶ 17, 609 N.W.2d 152, 157. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony. See Byrd v. Nix, 548 So.2d 1317, 1319-20 (Miss.1989). See also In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle, 694 N.W.2d 212, 218 (N.D.2005).