No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Rule 61.Harmless Error
Part VII: Judgment · Last amended 1966 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceRule 15-6-61 bars a new trial or a disturbed judgment over an evidentiary or procedural error unless letting the error stand would be inconsistent with substantial justice, and it directs the court to disregard any error or defect that does not affect a party’s substantial rights.
Full Text of Rule 15-6-61
Plain-English Summary
Rule 15-6-61 keeps small mistakes from undoing an otherwise sound result. No error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling, order, or in anything the court or the parties did or failed to do, is by itself grounds for a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. The rule sets the bar for overturning something on that basis at inconsistency with substantial justice — refusing to act has to look wrong in that larger sense, not just technically imperfect.
The rule also gives courts an ongoing job, not just a standard to apply when a party raises an error. At every stage of a proceeding, the court must disregard any error or defect that does not affect a party’s substantial rights. That combination — a demanding standard for overturning a result, paired with an affirmative duty to look past errors that do not matter — runs through the whole trial and post-trial process, not just the moment a party objects to something.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every trial court mistake entitle a party to a new trial in South Dakota?
No. Rule 15-6-61 states that no error or defect in a ruling, order, or anything done or omitted is grounds for a new trial unless refusing to act appears inconsistent with substantial justice.
What standard must an error meet before it can overturn a verdict or judgment in South Dakota?
Rule 15-6-61 requires that the error affect the party’s substantial rights and that refusing relief appear inconsistent with substantial justice; anything short of that is treated as harmless.
Does Rule 15-6-61 apply to errors in admitting or excluding evidence?
Yes. The rule explicitly covers errors in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence, alongside other errors or defects in rulings or orders.
Is a South Dakota court required to actively look for harmless errors, or only respond when a party raises one?
Rule 15-6-61 imposes an active duty: the court must disregard any error or defect that does not affect substantial rights at every stage of the proceeding.
Does this harmless error rule apply only to jury trials?
No. Rule 15-6-61 refers broadly to setting aside a verdict or vacating, modifying, or disturbing a judgment or order, so it applies to rulings in both jury and nonjury proceedings.
Amendment History
—SD RCP, Rule 61, as adopted by Sup. Ct. Order March 29, 1966, effective July 1, 1966.
Source & verification. Rule text and History are
reproduced verbatim from the South Dakota Codified Laws, published by the
South Dakota Legislative Research Council. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: south dakota harmless error rulesubstantial rights standard south dakotaharmless error evidentiary ruling south dakotawhen is a trial error harmless