Opinion ID: 2101622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Prior Inconsistent Statement Instruction

Text: During the guilt-innocence phase of the trial the judge instructed the jury that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness was the kind of evidence that may be considered in deciding the weight to be given the testimony of the witness as well as substantial evidence of the guilt of the defendant. This instruction was based on Patterson v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 55, 324 N.E.2d 482 (recently overruled in Modesitt v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 649). Patterson recognized as substantive evidence certain hearsay statements. The Court of Appeals considered this instruction in State v. Willis (1990), Ind. App., 552 N.E.2d 512, and concluded that it did not produce fundamental error. Appellant argues that the use of the word substantial strongly implies that such evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a finding. Persons trained in the law might discern such an implication. However the jury would not do so, but would instead discern the message that such a statement can have real or actual worth as evidence of guilt, which can be duly weighed along with all the other evidence. That message alone did not impair the fairness of trial on guilt-innocence.