Opinion ID: 1913355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in restricting City's cross-examination of a witness called by Kelleys.

Text: City claims the trial court erred by not allowing it to use leading questions when cross-examining a witness called by Kelleys. The trial court restricted City because the witness was a city employee and was not adverse to City's position even though Kelleys called the witness. Generally, leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. SDCL 19-14-20. [4] However, cross-examination as found in SDCL 19-14-20 does not mean counsel has an unqualified right to ask leading questions of their client's employees. Matter of Estate of Herm, 284 N.W.2d 191 (Ia.1979). `The majority rule is that generally where an adverse witness is shown to be friendly toward or biased in favor of the cross-examiner the reason for the rule, grounded on the assumed hostility of such witness to the cross-examiner's cause, has ceased to exist and leading questions may not be used in examining such witness.' Shamburger v. Behrens, 380 N.W.2d 659, 664 (S.D.1986) (quoting Estate of Herm, 284 N.W.2d at 197-98). Permitting the use of leading questions is within the discretion of the trial court. Tsiolis v. Hatterscheidt, 85 S.D. 568, 187 N.W.2d 104 (1971). Although the witness in this case was called by Kelleys, the witness was not automatically adverse. At best, it may be argued that this witness may be identified with an adverse party. Nevertheless, we do not find the restriction to be an abuse of discretion. [5]