Opinion ID: 2321640
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Context of Daniel Presley's Statements

Text: Daniel Presley testified at trial that he heard contact, that he saw his brother's hard hat go off, and that out of the corner of [his] eye, he saw his brother get knocked off the tower by the fan shroud. CMR then sought to impeach Daniel Presley's trial testimony with what it contends was his prior inconsistent statement made during a workers' compensation claim interview conducted in March 2002 by Poole. In the interview, Daniel Presley stated that he had his back to the crane operator at the time of the accident. He then noticed out of the corner of [his] eye [that his] brother had lost his footing due to whatever reason, and he . . . fell over the side of the tower and caught himself on the edge of the lip of the top of the cooling tower momentarily, and couldn't hang on and then fell. Daniel Presley also stated, I mean I could sit here, I could sit right here and tell you that yea, the dude definitely done it, he swung it, but I'd be lying like hell you know what I'm saying? When asked to confirm that he made the prior statements, Daniel Presley testified at trial: [If] [y]ou have a recording that could be played that I could listen to, then I can actually confirm that yep, I hear myself saying that. But for you to present something to me saying that this is what I said, the only thing I can answer is if you're saying that this is authentic, it must be so. But for me to tell you that I recall saying this five years ago, I can't recall. On redirect examination, appellants sought to rehabilitate Daniel Presley by having him explain the portions of the interview with which CMR sought to impeach him. CMR objected, however, arguing that Daniel Presley did not adopt the statements and thus could not put into context statements that he did not remember making. Appellants then abandoned that line of questioning, and sought to have Daniel Presley explain other portions of the interview that CMR had not used for impeachment, including his statement to Poole that his brother, Charles Presley, told him that he had been knocked off the tower by the crane. The trial court rejected appellants' attempt to introduce the other portions of the interview, reasoning that the statements did not actually rehabilitate the witness. Ultimately, however, the trial court allowed appellants to use the interview to refresh Daniel Presley's recollection about what his brother had said about the accident. Daniel Presley eventually testified that his brother told him that he would hate to think that the crane operator intentionally knocked him off the tower. During deliberations, the jury requested to see a copy of Poole's report on the interview containing Daniel Presley's statement. In response, the trial court, with the agreement of the parties, fashioned a note which read: [P]ortions of the deposition testimony of Sharon Pool [sic] was [sic] read to you in evidence, both parties have the right to select what would be read. Her report is not in evidence, therefore, the Court is unable to provide additional information. Thank you.