Opinion ID: 901011
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the amortization is admissible as a summary pursuant to SDCL 19-18-6.

Text: [¶ 32.] Regardless of the trial court's refusal to admit this amortization because the underlying documents were unavailable, the fact remains that this amortization was not a summary [9] and, therefore, was inadmissible unless it qualified as another type of admissible evidence. [¶ 33.] The amortization was not a summary of documents but rather a conclusion Repp reached based on his calculations and assumptions from the Scotts' income tax returns. [10] Since only `writings, recordings, or photographs' may be the subject of a FedREvid Rule 1006 summary, such a summary cannot properly incorporate a witness' personal knowledge as the basis for any of the matters summarized.  (emphasis added) (citing 5 Weinstein and Berger, Weinstein's Evidence, 1006-8 to 1006-9 (1984); White Industries, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 611 F.Supp. 1049, 1070 (W.D.Mo.1985)). Repp's personal opinions, presumptions, and unfounded conclusions are not admissible under SDCL 19-18-6 [11] because they do more than summarize the writings. They go beyond the scope of SDCL 19-18-6 and state the opinion of Repp. In order to be admissible under SDCL 19-18-6, summary evidence must accurately reflect the underlying documents. 6 Weinstein and Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence, § 1006.07[1] (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed, 2d ed 1998); Needham, 639 F.2d at 403.