Court Opinion

ID: 9557460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:50:26.27636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:51.712970
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hall
specially concurring:
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and agree with the majority that Exhibit 6 was properly excluded from evidence. However, I feel that said exhibit was inadmissible for reasons other than those assigned in the majority opinion.
Parties who offer evidence impliedly and necessarily request that the same be considered by the judge or jury in determining the matters in issue. A party offering evidence vouches therefor. In C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Roberts, 35 Colo. 498, 84 Pac. 68, this court said:
“ * * * The plaintiff, by calling him as his witness, vouched for his credibility, and while he might be permitted to contradict his statements by other competent witnesses if he was able to do so, he would not be per*239mitted to impeach his credibility, or otherwise discredit his testimony. * * (Emphasis supplied.)
In Pacific Life Co. v. Van Fleet, 47 Colo. 401, 107 Pac. 1087, this court said:
« * * * ^ party who calls a witness may not directly impeach him, yet he is not precluded from producing other witnesses whose testimony is contradictory. * * (Emphasis supplied.)
In Cowles v. People, 107 Colo. 161, 110 P. (2d) 249, this court said:
“ * * * But the rule [against self-impeachment] does not prevent a party from showing that his witness has made false statements at some other time and place. It simply prohibits a party from attacking one for whom he has vouched to the court by repudiating the very evidence he has thus produced. * *
The parties having stipulated that the testimony of Cox (“being one of the witnesses of either party”) given at the previous trial be introduced in evidence, read to the jury and by them considered in arriving at a verdict, vouched for such testimony, and neither is “permitted to impeach his [Cox’s] credibility, or otherwise discredit his testimony.”
Mr. Justice Frantz joins in this specially concurring opinion.