Opinion ID: 1890528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forms of Impeachment

Text: To better understand the legal principles at issue, it is helpful to begin by comparing the categories and purposes of impeachment recognized in Missouri. As a general proposition, the credibility of witnesses is always a relevant issue in a lawsuit. State v. Smith, 996 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Mo.App.1999). Impeachment provides a tool to test a witness's perception, credibility, and truthfulness, which is essential because a jury is free to believe any, all, or none of a witness's testimony. State v. Hineman, 14 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Mo. banc 1999); Talley v. Richart, 353 Mo. 912, 185 S.W.2d 23, 26 (1945) (a party impeaches a witness to discredit the witness in the eyes of the fact-finder). For this reason, as this Court noted in Sandy Ford Ranch, Inc. v. Dill : It has long been the rule in Missouri that on cross-examination a witness may be asked any questions which tend to test his accuracy, veracity or credibility or to shake his credit by injuring his character. He may be compelled to answer any such question, however irrelevant it may be to the facts in issue, and however disgraceful the answer may be to himself, except where the answer might expose him to a criminal charge. 449 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Mo.1970). The most commonly recognized methods of impeaching a witness include:  admission of evidence showing the witness's incapacity or problems in his or her ability to perceive or memory;  admission of evidence of prior convictions;  admission of evidence of the witness's bias, interest or prejudice;  admission of prior inconsistent statements of the witness;  admission of evidence of the witness's character for truthfulness and veracity. [4] Each method of impeachment is governed by its own specific procedures and rules regarding cross-examination and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence. These rules developed under the common law in an attempt to permit admission of relevant evidence affecting credibility without causing undue prejudice to the other party or diverting the jury's focus from relevant issues.