Opinion ID: 1815100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: impermissible impeachment

Text: Hallman contends the state should not have been allowed to present the doctors' testimony because it was impermissible impeachment. Hallman claims it was prejudicial for the state to call the doctors to testify concerning the dynamics behind incest and about the victim herself, since Hallman did not have the opportunity to obtain a court appointed expert in this area. As we earlier stated, these experts were no less available to Hallman than to the state. Thus, there was no prejudice in permitting their testimony. Hallman also alleges that the doctors' testimony is extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement which should not have been allowed under SDCL 19-14-25. The doctors' testimony does not fall under the scope of that rule, but rather, is explanatory of the psychological environment under which a significant witness's testimony can be better understood by the jury. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed is affirmed. FOSHEIM, C.J., MORGAN, J., and HERTZ, Circuit Judge, acting as a Supreme Court Justice, concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs specially. TICE, Circuit Judge, sitting for WUEST, J., disqualified. SABERS, J., not having been a member of the court at the time this action was submitted to the court, did not participate.