Court Opinion

ID: 9530875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:04:47.079571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:16.607139
License: Public Domain

SHINN, P. J.
I concur in the judgment. It is well settled that where the circumstances are such as to reasonably support a claim that the testimony of a witness at the trial is *656a recent fabrication evidence that the witness previously made statements substantially corresponding with his testimony may be received to meet the claim of recent fabrication. There is a vast difference between a claim of recent fabrication and the usual cross-examination, the invariable purpose of which is, of course, to discover any untruth in the testimony. .If no facts are brought out to indicate that the testimony may be of recent invention, and not merely untruthful, the rule has no application. , I can think of no more dangerous or unsupportable rule of evidence than one that would permit the testimony of a witness to be bolstered by evidence that he had previously made statements consistent with his testimony for the sole reason that he had been cross-examined with the hope of proving the falsity of his testimony. I do not believe that it will ever become the law in California that the testimony of every prosecuting witness whose veracity is challenged can be fortified by evidence that on a former occasion he wrote down in a diary, or on a calendar or some scrap of paper his unsworn version of the occurrence. Such an extraordinary departure from the fundamental rules, of evidence would open the way to the unlimited manufacture of- evidence. No justification for it can be found in the mere fact that the witness was cross-examined, not as to facts of recent occurrence which might have influenced his testimony, but only as to testimony given in the course of his direct examination.
It is clear to me that the majority opinion does not impliedly endorse the proposition that rehabilitating evidence may be received when there is in evidence no circumstance or event of recent occurrence, such as a desire for revenge, self-interest or pressure, which might have caused the witness to give testimony he would not have given otherwise. But I would point out that the opinion should be carefully read in the light' of all the facts of the present case, as they are stated, for an understanding of the reasons for affirmance of the judgment.