Court Opinion

ID: 9687167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:17:42.100855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.647595
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I dissent. In 1966, this Court adopted SDCL 15-6-51(a) providing that requested instructions “... shall be typed, double-spaced, on letter-size, bond paper[.]” Counsel failed to comply with this rule. The trial court applied the rule adopted by this Court. Now, the majority reverses the trial judge for following our rule and decision in Greene, 86 S.D. at 185, 192 N.W.2d at 716-17 (1971) (<citing Reed, 387 N.W.2d at 13). The majority’s reliance on Reed is misplaced. In Reed, defense counsel acquiesced in the handwritten addition to the instructions. We said, “[a] defendant should not be permitted to quietly acquiesce, thereby preserving an error for later use in the event of an adverse verdict. Our rules provide that an objection must be made when the instructions are settled, otherwise error is not preserved.” We further held that the handwriting was harmless error. SDCL 23A-44-14. The facts in this case are entirely different. Here, the trial judge refused to accept an instruction in violation of our rules. Neither the Court nor defense counsel acquiesced. I am concerned this decision will wreak havoc with *390the rule leaving the trial courts and the Bar in utter confusion. If the rule is too harsh, let us change it by adopting a new or amended rule.
In all other aspects, I concur with the majority opinion.