Court Opinion

ID: 9643340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:26:19.670738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:59.586921
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority overrule the state’s second motion for rehearing without written opinion.
In doing so they cast aside the following authorities which sustain Judge McDonald’s disposition of the question of whether the state’s witness Aleñe Joseph was impeached, in his opinion affirming this conviction.
From Lopez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 352 S.W.2d 106:
“While testifying for the State, Marcella Lopez (the mother of appellant) admitted that she signed a statement by making a mark in the presence of her son, Domacio Lopez, and his wife, in which she stated that shortly after Christmas, in 1958, she found some money in the roof of an outside toilet after she had seen the appellant go to the outside toilet, but she denied saying that she saw him take anything from his pocket and hide it on the roof of the toilet. She further denied saying that ‘After I found the money, I began to wonder if maybe Andres (appellant) had killed Miguel Ramos.’ The statement referred to during the examination of Marcella Lopez was never introduced in evidence.
“(2) To constitute the impeachment of which the appellant complains, it would be necessary for the State to support the predicate laid, either by the introduction of the written statement or by an affirmative showing that the written statement contained such matter. In the absence of such proof, her denial of making such statement was not contradicted. Therefore, the matter of her impeachment is not presented. Bailey v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 40 S.W. 281; Robbins v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 107, 282 S.W.2d 711.”
From 62 Tex.Jur.2d Sec. 307:
“ * * * Where the contradictory statement is contained in a document if is not a sufficient predicate merely to ask if a certain writing had been signed by the witness; the document must be produced for inspection by counsel for the opposite party, and for identification by the witness whose attention must he called to the statements therein that are relied on by the cross-examiner as being in conflict with the testimony.”
From McCormick and Ray, Texas Evidence, Second Edition, Section 687:
“ * * * In the contradiction already considered the statements of other witnesses were relied on to show the error. Here the witness’ own prior statement in which he gave a contrary version, is used. Since his previous statement and his present testimony are contradictory, one of them must be erroneous * * *. Qj course where the witness denies making the former statement other witnesses must be called as in the preceding method.”
Section 692:
“One of the chief objections to the use of prior contradictory statements is that of unfair surprise. * * * To obviate this objection the rule was laid down more than a century ago that before a witness could be impeached by prior inconsistent statements a predicate must first be laid. This consists in asking the witness, on his cross-examination, whether he made the alleged contradictory statement. The witness is thus warned that the statement will later be used against him. *884He, is given an opportunity to deny it and prepare to disprove it, or if he admits making it, to explain the statement. This rule is recognized in almost all jurisdictions. It was adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas at an early date and has been rigidly enforced since that time. The Texas Courts have made no distinction between oral and written statements in this regard.”
Section 695 :
“Where the witness denies making the prior contradictory statement all the courts hold that the adverse party may prove that he did make such statement. And where he states that he 'does not remember’ having made the statement or is not positive he made it, the predicate is complete and the impeachment may proceed.”
I respectfully dissent.