Opinion ID: 1245727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: impeachment testimony of reply witness

Text: In cross examination the Solicitor was permitted, over objection, to question DuBose concerning an alleged conversation with one Gary Chandler, a former next-door neighbor. DuBose specifically denied telling Chandler that he had grown marijuana: Q. And do you recall telling him that you were growing marijuana, but you weren't worried about getting caught because your daddy would protect you? A. No sir, I don't remember saying any  Q. You deny making that statement to Gary Chandler? A. That's right. After DuBose rested his defense, the State called Chandler as a reply witness. Over objection he testified: Q. All right, what do you recall? A. Dave was a next door neighbor and we barbecued a few times. This was in `73-74 year, and we drank rum and socialized a little bit, and sometime or other, I was bragging about my farming back home, and he said something about he was farming and he enjoyed it so much and then one time  BY THE COURT: A little louder, please  A. I'm sorry, sir  BY THE COURT: Hold that microphone a little closer to your mouth. A. (Witness complies) He said something  he said that he could grow  he was growing marijuana out on his farm and that he would not be caught. DuBose objected to this line of questioning upon the ground that it inquired into matters collateral to the State's case in chief. We agree. We held in State v. Brock , 130 S.C. 252, 126 S.E. 28 (1924) that whether a matter is collateral to the issues involved is determined by the answer to this question: Would the cross-examining party be entitled to prove the fact as a part of, and as tending to establish, his case? If the would be allowed to do so, the matter is not collateral; but, if he would not be allowed to do so, it is collateral. Collateral matters, in this sense, are such as afford no reasonable inference as to the principal matter in dispute. 130 S.C. at 254, 126 S.E. at 29. Here, by Chandler's own admission, the statement attributed to DuBose was made at least 11 years prior to trial. It alleges the commission of a prior bad act not recognized as an exception in Lyle. See also State v. Byers , 277 S.C. 176, 284 S.E. (2d) 360 (1981). Therefore, the State, in its case in chief, could not have presented this evidence against DuBose. Moreover, where, as here, a witness denies an act involving a matter collateral to the case in chief, the inquiry ends. The inquiring party is not permitted to introduce evidence in contradiction or impeachment. State v. Hale , 284 S.C. 348, 326 S.E. (2d) 418, 421 (Ct. App. 1985); State v. Allen , 266 S.C. 468, 482, 224 S.E. (2d) 881, 886 (1976). Finally, in its brief the State contends the Chandler testimony was admissible to impeach DuBose's credibility as to his testimony denying knowledge of what marijuana was and looked like. We disagree. DuBose did not so testify specifically, and nothing in the record infers the State's characterization of his testimony. Clearly, the testimony of Chandler should have, upon objection, been excluded. Its devastating prejudicial effect requires no comment. Reversed and remanded. NESS, C.J., GREGORY, HARWELL and CHANDLER, JJ., and MARION H. KINON, Acting J., concur. FINNEY, J., not participating