Opinion ID: 2321139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Erred by Refusing to Let Smith Impeach Gant's Earlier Statement

Text: Smith argues that Detective McCloud's testimony was admissible to impeach Gant's earlier statement to Laura Brown that Smith cut him. Once admitted, Gant's statement became open to impeachment by Smith, and the trial court should have admitted Detective McCloud's testimony for that purpose. `An impeachment witness, by definition, includes one who will testify that the adversary's witness has made a prior inconsistent statement, and is therefore less worthy of belief than if she had testified consistently.' Gamble v. United States, 901 A.2d 159, 171-72 (D.C.2006) (quoting R. & G. Orthopedic Appliances & Prosthetics, Inc. v. Curtin, 596 A.2d 530, 537 (D.C.1991)). If Gant had been alive to testify at trial that Smith stabbed him, Detective McCloud's testimony certainly would have been admissible to impeach him. See, e.g., Gamble, 901 A.2d at 171-72. Gant did not testify, of course, but once the trial court admitted his earlier statement to Brown, Gant became in essence, [a] witness[], and should [have] be[en] treated as such for credibility purposes. Watkins v. United States, 846 A.2d 293, 298 (D.C.2004). According to Federal Rule of Evidence 806, an out-of-court declarant's `credibility should in fairness be subject to impeachment and support as though he had in fact testified.' Id. (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 806 Advisory Committee notes); see also Fed.R.Evid. 806 (an out-of-court declarant's credibility is open to attack by any evidence which would be admissible . . . if declarant had testified as a witness). While this jurisdiction has not adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, this court will look to those rules for guidance, Goon v. Gee Kung Tong, Inc., 544 A.2d 277, 280 n. 9 (D.C.1988), and we hold that the trial court erred by refusing to permit Smith to use Detective McCloud's testimony to impeach Gant.