Court Opinion

ID: 9685546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:46:37.778659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.590409
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I join the dissent of Justice Henderson on Issue II because Koepsell should have been permitted to cross-examine .V.N., a hostile and adverse witness as to Koepsell, regarding' bias, prejudice, and the possibility of a civil lawsuit for damages against her.
I dissent also on Issue I for the additional reason that the experts’ opinion testimony that the children were not led or coached is the ultimate issue that they were telling the truth when they claimed, despite inconsistent earlier testimony, that they were abused by Grandma too. McCafferty, 449 N.W.2d at 592 (one witness may not testify as to another witness’ credibility or truth-telling capacity).
Additionally, this case precedes the Supreme Court Rule change on ultimate issue testimony, see SDCL 19-15-4 (1993), and therefore, the majority opinion violates the applicable law. See State v. Burtzlaff, 493 N.W.2d 1, 10 (S.D.1992) (Wuest, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The ‘ultimate issue rule’ prevents a witness from expressing an opinion on one of the ultimate issues to be decided by the trier of fact. South Dakota retains the ultimate issue rule (as the ‘Ultimate Fact Doctrine’) and does not permit an expert witness to express an opinion upon the ultimate issue, holding it usurps the province of the jury.” (Citations omitted.)) It is simply too early to apply the new rule to this case.