Opinion ID: 1826617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Testimony of Theresa Kattke

Text: Finally, Company alleges the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Theresa Kattke (Kattke). At the pretrial hearing, Company, through a motion in limine, objected to Kattke's testimony. The trial court held that Kattke's testimony would be allowed only for the purpose of impeaching Fitzgerald's testimony. The court, therefore, required that Cody call Fitzgerald as an adverse witness prior to Kattke's testimony. Following Fitzgerald's testimony, Cody was required to make an offer of proof as to how Kattke's testimony would impeach Fitzgerald. During his examination, Fitzgerald testified that he had not previously misrepresented a client's income for the purpose of qualifying the client for an investment. Fitzgerald then specifically denied ever altering a client's net worth figure for investment in NRM. Following this testimony, Cody made an offer of proof that Kattke's income figure had been altered by Fitzgerald specifically to qualify her for an investment in NRM. The court ruled that Kattke's testimony would be allowed for the purpose of impeaching Fitzgerald's credibility. A trial court's evidentiary rulings are presumptively correct. In reviewing the trial court's ruling, we must determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Opp v. Nieuwsma, 458 N.W.2d 352, 357 (S.D. 1990). An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4, 7 (S.D.1984). Extrinsic evidence may be introduced at the discretion of the court if the evidence is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Larson, 472 N.W.2d at 764. Kattke's testimony was probative of whether or not Fitzgerald's testimony was worthy of belief and was appropriate evidence for the jury to receive when having the duty to decide issues of witness credibility. Kattke's testimony refuted both the general statement by Fitzgerald that he had never falsified another client's income and the more specific statement that he had never falsified the income of a client investing in NRM, an investment that Kattke made. The trial court's admission of Kattke's testimony for impeachment purposes was not clearly against reason and evidence and thus not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., concur.