Opinion ID: 1913355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing a jury view of the property during jury deliberations.

Text: City claims error when the trial court granted the jury's request to view the condemned property during their deliberations. SDCL 21-35-16 provides: Upon the demand of any party to the proceeding, if the court shall deem it necessary, the jury may view the premises under the rules of law for viewing by the jury. The rules of law governing a jury's view of the property are covered in SDCL 15-14-16, which provides: When in the opinion of the court it is proper for the jury to have a view of the property which is the subject of litigation, or of the place in which any material fact occurred, it may order them to be conducted in a body, under the charge of an officer, to the place which shall be shown to them by some person appointed by the court for that purpose. The jury may be given a view of the property or place while the case is being submitted to them or during their deliberation, or both, as the court may order. While the jury are thus absent, no person, other than the person so appointed, shall speak to them on any subject connected with the trial. (Emphasis added.) The trial court granted the jury's request to view the property under SDCL 15-14-16. This statute specifically allows a jury to view the property during its deliberations. Nearly every jurisdiction has either authorized or permitted a view in eminent domain proceedings. Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 18.08. However, the purpose of the view and the legal effect of its consideration by the fact-finder is not uniformly agreed upon. Id. This court has held that the jury's view of property is not evidence. Grubbs v. Foremost Insurance Co., 82 S.D. 98, 141 N.W.2d 777 (1966). However, we have held that it does enable the trier of facts to more satisfactorily weigh the evidence given in court and is of assistance to him in determining the issues of fact. Beatty v. Depue, 78 S.D. 395, 401, 103 N.W.2d 187, 190 (1960); 1 A.L.R.3d 531 (1960). A view of the premises by a jury in a condemnation proceeding should be denied only for good and cogent reasons. State Highway Commission v. Bloom, 77 S.D. 452, 465, 93 N.W.2d 572, 580 (1958). Whether a view is proper and to be ordered rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Bean v. Best, 77 S.D. 433, 93 N.W.2d 403 (1958). We do not find an abuse of discretion in this case.