Court Opinion

ID: 9810643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:55:09.982613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:07.875077
License: Public Domain

Stagy, O. J.,
dissenting: I think there was error, to tbe prejudice of tbe defendant, in not admitting tbe whole of tbe affidavit, made by tbe witness Shumate on 14 July, 1924, which, in my opinion, competently tends to impair tbe credibility of bis testimony given at tbe trial.
Tbe only contested issue before tbe jury was whether tbe assured was “sane and sober” at tbe time be received tbe injury which subsequently proved fatal. Shumate, who was with tbe assured for several hours prior to tbe accident, gave it as bis opinion that be was sane and sober when injured. Tbe witness bad previously signed an affidavit, in which, inter alia, tbe following statements appear: “On tbe night of 14 July, 1924, I volunteered to take Mr. James Moore, of Fayetteville, to bis home after tbe police bad threatened to lock him up for being drunk. ... I noticed that be bad been drinking intoxicating liquor.” His Honor admitted tbe affidavit, after striking out tbe words “for being drunk” in tbe first sentence and tbe word “intoxicating” in tbe second sentence above, giving as a reason: “I struck that part out, because be struck it out of bis evidence.” Tbe fact that tbe witness testified differently on tbe trial is what makes tbe contradictory statements in tbe affidavit competent, as they tend to impeach bis testimony. Smith v. Tel. Co., 168 N. C., 515. This evidence was capitally important, as Shumate bad been with tbe assured for several hours and was tbe only other person present at tbe time of tbe injury.
That tbe statements of a witness made out of court, orally or in writing, if contradictory in a material respect to bis sworn testimony given on tbe trial, are competent to be offered in evidence, not as substantive proof of tbe truth of such statements, but for tbe purpose of discrediting tbe witness or impeaching bis .testimony, seems to be settled by all tbe authorities on tbe subject. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Wade, 206 Ill., 523; People v. Pursley, 302 Ill., 62, 134 N. E., 128; Hanlon v. Ehrict, 178 N. Y., 474; Romertze v. Bank, 49 N. Y., 577; Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 463.
For tbe reason stated I am constrained to dissent from tbe judgment of tbe majority, as I think a new trial should be awarded tbe defendant.