Christenson v. Crowned Ridge Wind, LLC, 978 N.W.2d 756

Crowned Ridge sought a PUC permit to build a ~300 MW wind farm (up to 130 turbines) in Codington and Grant Counties; contested evidentiary hearing followed.
Crowned Ridge pre-filed expert testimony: Jay Haley (sound and shadow-flicker studies) and Dr. Kimberly Wells (environmental/avian/cultural studies); Haley later supplemented; Dr. Wells became unavailable and Sarah Sappington was called as a substitute witness.
Intervenors (Christenson and Robish) objected at the hearing: Haley allegedly misrepresented himself as a licensed professional engineer (used “P.E.” after his name); Sappington’s testimony was objected to as hearsay/adoption of Dr. Wells’s pre-filed testimony.
The PUC overruled both objections (examiner and three commissioners), received the testimony, and issued an order granting the permit with 45 conditions addressing sound, shadow flicker, wildlife, and cultural/resource mitigation.
Intervenors appealed to circuit court raising numerous issues but did not specifically preserve an objection to admission of Haley’s testimony and did not brief the evidentiary objection to Sappington; the circuit court affirmed. Intervenors appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court on the two evidentiary issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Haley’s testimony despite his use of “P.E.”	Haley’s misrepresentation undermined admissibility; his testimony and exhibits should be stricken.	Haley is qualified by education/experience; mislabeling affects credibility/weight, not admissibility; PUC has discretion to admit.	Issue waived for failure to preserve; on the merits, no abuse of discretion—Haley qualified under Rule 702 and admission was within PUC discretion.
Admission of Sappington’s testimony as adoption of Dr. Wells (hearsay)	Sappington merely adopted Dr. Wells’s out‑of‑court prefiled testimony, creating hearsay and requiring exclusion.	Sappington had first‑hand involvement, personal knowledge, and assisted drafting; she testified under oath and was cross‑examinable—so not hearsay.	Issue largely waived for inadequate preservation; on the merits, not hearsay—admission proper and within PUC discretion.
Preservation / waiver under SDCL 1‑26‑31.4	Intervenors contend errors in evidence justify reversal.	Intervenors failed to list specific evidentiary objections in their statement of issues and did not develop the arguments below; unpreserved issues are waived.	Court enforces preservation rule; failure to specify issues in statement/brief forfeits review.

Anderson v. S.D. Ret. Sys., 924 N.W.2d 146 (S.D. 2019) (standards for circuit court and appellate review of agency decisions)
Lagler v. Menard, Inc., 915 N.W.2d 707 (S.D. 2018) (preservation—statement of issues requirement in administrative appeals)
Dail v. South Dakota Real Estate Comm’n, 257 N.W.2d 709 (S.D. 1977) (administrative hearings generally follow rules of evidence; SDCL 1‑26‑19 guidance)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court must ensure expert testimony rests on reliable foundation and is relevant)
In re Application of Benton, 691 N.W.2d 598 (S.D. 2005) (definition and contours of abuse of discretion)
State v. Wills, 908 N.W.2d 757 (S.D. 2018) (definition of hearsay: out‑of‑court statement offered to prove truth of matter asserted)
DuBray v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 690 N.W.2d 657 (S.D. 2004) (SDCL 1‑26‑19—admission of otherwise inadmissible written evidence requires showing no substantial prejudice to parties)