Opinion ID: 1170873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impeachment of Proffered Hearsay Testimony

Text: (12a) Defendant desired to present testimony by Hicks, who later became his wife, that Huffman had admitted to her  i.e., in a declaration against penal interest  that it was he who shot Schmidt-Till. The prosecutor responded that he would then submit a tape recording in which Huffman pointed the finger at defendant. The court stated that it would allow such impeachment, whereupon defendant abandoned introduction of the Hicks statement. Defendant first avers that the ruling prevented him from presenting a defense. Yet he remained free to introduce the Hicks statement. He is not entitled to have his hearsay evidence insulated from attack by contrary hearsay evidence. Secondly, he urges us to hold that the ruling misinterpreted the Evidence Code. Section 1202 allows a hearsay declarant to be impeached by inconsistent statements even when the declarant is not given an opportunity to explain or deny the inconsistency. Defendant points to the comment to section 1202 by the Law Revision Commission, to the effect that if the declarant is available the party using his hearsay statement has the burden of calling him to explain or deny any alleged inconsistencies. But this does not require, as he claims, that before introducing the Huffman tape the People were obligated to call Huffman as a witness. It simply means that had the tape been introduced into evidence, Huffman should have been afforded an opportunity to explain the inconsistency. Since the tape was never placed in evidence, defendant's argument misses the point.