Court Opinion

ID: 9685418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:36:58.869021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:05.760367
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I am concerned with the problems presented by Issue I, relating to recovery being limited to Witte’s own version, and Issue II, as well as Instruction No. 14, but not enough to vote for reversal on that basis alone.
Issue III is another matter. These letters (Exhibits Nos. 25 and 26) were clearly business records under SDCL 19-16-10. Although these letters were not prepared by Hills of Rest, they were the basis on which the limited audit of Hills of Rest's books was requested by them and was performed by the CPA firm. The jury was entitled to know the scope of the audit report and Hills of Rest was entitled to have the jury know.
I am also concerned about the refusal of the trial court to allow Daniels to testify as to the loss of value of the trade secrets and sales cards converted by Witte. Daniels was in a position similar to an owner and his testimony should have been received. Witte’s objections go to the weight and credibility of the testimony, not admissibility or foundation.
Cumulatively, I think these problems and errors require a new trial so I join the majority opinion, at least in part.