Title: Ames v. State
Citation: 537 P.2d 1116
Docket Number: 2145
State: Alaska
Issuer: Alaska Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 1975

537 P.2d 1116 (1975) Patrick Michael AMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. No. 2145. Supreme Court of Alaska. June 26, 1975. Appellant has moved for rehearing on the basis that the court has a misconception of the facts of the case and that the transcript demonstrates that appellant in fact followed the proper procedure in attempting to impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement. After reviewing the record we grant limited rehearing to modify the opinion. It is ordered that page 6 of the opinion dated April 3, 1975 is modified to read as follows: Footnotes 2 (page 5), 4 and 5 (page 6) are deleted, and footnote 3 is renumbered footnote 2. Footnotes 6, 7, 8 and 9 (on pages 7-9) are renumbered 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. New footnotes 3 and 4 are added as follows: 3. See McMaster v. State, 512 P.2d 879, 884-86 (Alaska 1973) (Connor, J. dissenting); McCormick's Law of Evidence § 37, at 72 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972). Prior inconsistent statements may be admitted on this basis even though they deal with collateral matters. Id. § 36 at 70-71; 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence, § 1023 at 1018-20 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). Since inconsistent statements may be used as substantive evidence, the testimony with which the previous statement is inconsistent should be material. 2 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 468 at 410-12 (13th ed. 1972). See Beavers v. State, 492 P.2d 88, 94 (Alaska 1971). 4. At the preliminary hearing the witness stated: At the trial the witness answered the question of whether she could hear anyone walking in their bare feet as follows: