Court Opinion

ID: 9693040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:17:12.782755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:39.072607
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Retired Justice
(dissenting).
I would adhere to the Rufener I opinion. I am still convinced the objection to the pistol on relevancy grounds was insufficient under SDCL 19-9-3(1) and the case authority cited in Rufener I, 392 N.W.2d at 427. As pointed out in our earlier opinion on this case:
The reason for the rule [dictating that an objection worded in terms such as ‘incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial’ is too general to preserve an issue on appeal] is two-fold: (1) to enable the trial judge to understand the precise question upon which he has to rule and to relieve him of the burden of searching for the basis of the objection; and (2) to afford the opposing party an opportunity to obviate the objection.
Id. To my mind, the current majority opinion does a disservice both to judges who must rule on such generalized objections, and to attorneys faced with answering such objections.