Opinion ID: 1951711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admissibility of three inconsistent oral statements

Text: The appellant next contends that the court erred in accepting into evidence, over objection by appellant's counsel, the three conflicting versions of the incident related to officers by appellant during their investigation on the morning of the killing. The appellant's contention is that the statements were introduced into evidence by the state in an attempt to impeach appellant before she testified. It is conceded to be the general rule that a witness may not be impeached until he has testified. See Hall v. State, 250 Miss. 253, 165 So.2d 345 (1964). Therefore, at the time the trial judge admitted the statements into evidence, they were not admissible for impeachment purposes. However, what appellant overlooks in this case is that the three inconsistent oral statements were admissible for a purpose other than impeachment. They had substantive effect as tending to show a consciousness of guilt on the part of appellant. The rule is stated in 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 738 at 1094-1095 (1961), where it is said: Self-serving statements made by or for accused out of court, explaining suspicious circumstances, may be proved against him, and their falsity may then be shown. The fact of their falsity admits them as indicating an attempt to explain away incriminating circumstances by falsehoods. Where accused testifies, his self-serving statements contradicting his testimony, may be shown. It may be shown also that accused made two or more conflicting statements out of court in reference to an incriminating fact; and this right is not affected by the fact that accused does not become a witness. Inconsistent statements relevant to the crime charged are not limited to use for impeachment purposes; they have substantive effect as tending to show a consciousness of guilt. (Emphasis added). We are, therefore, of the opinion that no error was committed by the trial court in admitting into evidence the three inconsistent statements made by appellant on the morning of the killing. We have considered the remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed. GILLESPIE, C.J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG and BROOM, JJ., concur.