Opinion ID: 2623595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Prior Inconsistent Statements

Text: Marlow's sister, Veronica Koppers, testified for the prosecution concerning events leading up to and immediately following Novis's murder. Before defendants' trial, Koppers was herself tried and convicted of being an accessory to the kidnapping and robbery of Novis. While in custody during her own trial, Koppers took medications for depression and difficulty sleeping (Elavil and Sinequan, respectively); in the present trial, she testified she had problems recalling what happened during the period of her incarceration, including the substance of her testimony at her own trial. Finding Koppers was being deliberately evasive in stating she did not recall what Marlow was wearing and what he had said at the Drinkhouse residence on the night of the offenses and in claiming that the transcript of her prior testimony did not refresh her recollection, the trial court permitted the prosecutor, over Marlow's objection, to read Koppers's former testimony to the jury. Marlow contends the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to impeach Koppers with her former testimony, because the court's finding of willful evasiveness was not supported by substantial evidence. We find no error. Evidence Code sections 770 and 1235 except from the general rule against hearsay evidence a witness's prior statement that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony in the present hearing, provided the witness is given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. (Evid.Code, § 770, subd. (a).) [22] Normally, the testimony of a witness that he or she does not remember an event is not inconsistent with that witness's prior statement describing the event. ( People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1219, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1.) When, however, a witness's claim of lack of memory amounts to deliberate evasion, inconsistency is implied. ( Ibid. ) The trial court had the opportunity to view Koppers's demeanor and therefore was in the best position to assess the credibility of her claimed nonrecollection. Marlow asserts that short-term memory loss is a known side effect of Elavil, but no such medical evidence was presented to the trial court in this case. We find no error in the trial court's ruling in this regard. Marlow's derivative claims of constitutional error likewise fail.