Traditionally, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness could not be offered until and unless the witness was presented with the inconsistent statement. The rule contains no particular sequence or timing so long as the witness has the opportunity to explain the statement. Even though Magee did not have to be confronted with the prior statement before Jose could be called to testify, we conclude that under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when ruling that the traditional sequence would be followed. Further, because Magee could not subsequently be located and consequently would not be given the opportunity to explain the prior statement, the exclusion of Jose's testimony altogether was not an abuse of discretion. An element of that felony is the unlawful manufacture, possession, importation, exportation, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
The overriding goal guiding judicial interpretation of statutes is to discover and give effect to legislative intent. Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the words are used. The first period lasts for three years, and it applies to individuals convicted of a felony, as that term is defined by the statute. The second period lasts for five years, and it applies to individuals convicted of a specified felony, as that phrase is defined by the statute. In plain and unambiguous language, the statute indicates that a specified felony is merely a particularized subcategory of the category felony.