Opinion ID: 2824295
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contradiction Evidence

Text: Mr. Taylor next contends that Ms. Little’s proffered testimony is relevant evidence of the officers’ credibility because her testimony directly contradicts the officers’ testimony about Mr. Taylor’s arrest. Evidence contradicting a witness’s testimony not only supplies direct factual evidence but also may be used to undermine the confidence in the reliability of the witness’s testimony. Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 675 n.4. As already explained, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Ms. Little’s testimony as direct evidence. When contradiction evidence is sought to be used for impeachment 11 purposes, it not admissible if the contradiction relates to a collateral matter. Frechin v. Thornton, 326 S.W.2d 122, 126 (Mo. 1959); Maugh v. Chrysler Corp., 818 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo. App. 1991). “A matter is considered to be collateral if the fact in dispute is of no material significance in the case or is not pertinent to the issues developed. . . . If a fact may be shown in evidence for any purpose independent of contradiction, it is not collateral.” Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 680 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The only claims of contradiction argued to the trial court at the hearing on Mr. Taylor’s motion for new trial were contradictions with Ms. Little’s proffered testimony that Mr. Ford was outside when Mr. Taylor was arrested and that an officer took Ms. Little’s cell phone after she began filming the events after Mr. Taylor was arrested. 2 Mr. Taylor first claims that Ms. Little’s proffered testimony that Mr. Ford was outside during the time she heard a commotion would have contradicted the officers’ testimony that no one, besides Mr. Taylor, was outside before and during his arrest. Both Officer Clark and Officer Chamblin testified at trial that they did not see anyone but Mr. Taylor when they initially arrived at the scene. When Officer Clark was questioned 2 In his brief, Mr. Taylor further asserts that his offer of proof showed that Ms. Little’s testimony also would have contradicted the officers’ testimony because she would have testified that the officers were yelling at Mr. Taylor about a gun or weapon. As to whether the officers were yelling about a gun, Officer Clark was not asked whether anyone was yelling about a weapon. Officer Chamblin did testify that he did not yell at Mr. Taylor about a weapon. Whether an officer was yelling about a gun is not material to any fact in dispute, and this insignificant contradiction does little to impeach the credibility of Officer Chamblin. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not admitting Ms. Little’s testimony regarding the officers yelling about a gun or weapon. See Mitchell, 313 S.W.3d at 680. 12 whether he saw an individual sitting in a car outside, Officer Clark replied: “I don’t recall.” When Officer Chamblin was asked whether he saw Mr. Ford sitting in his vehicle, he replied that he “didn’t see anyone else but Demetrick Taylor initially.” Officer Clark testified that, after he and Officer Chamblin put Mr. Taylor in the patrol car, Mr. Ford approached them. Mr. Chamblin testified that he could not remember if he met Mr. Ford but believed that Officer Clark had talked to another individual. As noted previously, Mr. Taylor’s counsel did not state in the offer of proof that Ms. Little would testify that Mr. Ford was visible to the officers while he was outside before or during Mr. Taylor’s arrest. Both Ms. Little’s observation that Mr. Ford came in from outside after the arrest and the officers’ testimony that they did not see anyone until after Mr. Taylor’s arrest could be true. Therefore, Mr. Taylor fails to show that Ms. Little’s testimony would have contradicted the officers’ testimony. Regarding Ms. Little’s testimony that the officers took her cell phone and prevented her from videotaping the events after Mr. Taylor’s arrest, both officers were asked whether they encountered anyone else during the incident, but the trial court sustained objections to these questions before the officers could answer. Officer Chamblin was asked whether “there was another female that was outside at any point.” The state objected, and the court sustained the objection. Neither officer was asked specifically about whether Ms. Little was videotaping them with a cell phone that one of them seized. Mr. Taylor did not claim on appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining the state’s objection to Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination of the officers about their specific interactions with Ms. Little. Mr. Taylor claims error only in the trial court’s exclusion of 13 Ms. Little’s proffered direct testimony. Because the officers did not testify that they did not take Ms. Little’s cell phone or prevent her from videoing the events after Mr. Taylor’s arrest, her proffered testimony would not contradict their testimony, so it was not admissible as contradiction testimony. Because Ms. Little’s proffered testimony did not contradict the officers’ testimony, her testimony did not make a material fact more or less probable and, therefore, was not logically relevant. As such, the trial court’s decision to exclude this evidence was neither against the logic of the circumstances nor indicative of a lack of careful consideration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Ms. Little’s proffered testimony as contradiction evidence.