Title: Frazier v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Everette Lee FRAZIER v. STATE of Arkansas

CR94-995                                           ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 12, 1996


1.   Evidence -- prior consistent statement -- when not hearsay --
     admissible in present case. -- A prior statement by a witness
     testifying at a trial is not hearsay if it is consistent with
     his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied
     charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence
     or motive; that was the situation in the present case, where
     defense counsel made every attempt to show that a witness's
     trial testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statements,
     and fairness dictated that the prosecutor be allowed to
     explore this area of inquiry to clarify any confusion or
     misapprehension that may have lingered in the jury's mind from
     defense counsel's examination.

2.   Evidence -- prior consistent statement -- limited
     admissibility -- appellant could not complain that statement
     was used substantively where limiting instruction was neither
     requested nor accepted. -- Where evidence is admissible for
     one purpose but not admissible for another purpose, the court,
     upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope
     and instruct the jury accordingly; because the witness's prior
     consistent statement was admitted for a proper purpose, and
     the court offered to give a limiting instruction, appellant
     could not complain on appeal that the statement was used
     substantively by the State where appellant neither asked the
     court for a limiting instruction nor accepted the court's
     offer to give one.

3.   Appeal & error -- failure to request separation of
     inadmissible portions of transcribed statement -- issue could
     not be argued on appeal. -- Where appellant contended that the
     trial court erred in failing to separate inadmissible from
     admissible portions of a witness's transcribed statement but
     never raised the issue at trial nor pointed out to the trial
     court the purportedly offensive portions, the issue could not
     be argued on appeal.

4.   Criminal procedure -- use of person's silence for impeachment
     purposes -- bar does not apply to cross-examination regarding
     prior inconsistent statements -- denial of mistrial motion
     upheld. -- While Doyle v. Ohio,