Opinion ID: 2060701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Zecca's Direct Examination

Text: During Williamson's case-in-chief, counsel asked Zecca to return to the stand and to repeat Williamson's account of what happened in the motel room. The State objected on the basis that the statement sought to be produced was hearsay. Williamson did not argue that the hearsay fell within any exception, but merely argued that the question went to Zecca's credibility. The trial court sustained the State's hearsay objection and explained to Williamson how to circumvent that objection: [T]here's a way to cure that. And please don't misunderstand. I have no stake in whether your client takes the stand or not. I will protect his right to the hilt to not take the stand or to take it. But if you're that bothered by the jury not knowing the whole story, then you and I both know there is a real easy way to cure that. But it's a two-edged sword. So you're not estopped from doing it. What you want to do is do it risk-free. And I don't blame you for that, either, but unfortunately, the law requires some balance and equity, and the State is entitled to some protection too. So ... if you give me a ground  You concede it's not an admission because you can't offer it. It's not a statement against interest under 804. If it's 803(24), you have to give notice, even if it met ... the rest of the conditions.