Court Opinion

ID: 9790633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:56:19.685401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.633616
License: Public Domain

McGHEE, Justice (dissenting). Following the submission by Judge SWOPE of a proposed opinion in this case, and which now has a majority, Justice SADLER circulated a memorandum, the major portion of which I quote and adopt as my dissent as follows: “I doubt the correctness of the holding of the proposed opinion that a proper foundation was not laid for asking Leo Martinez if he did not make a purported statement to Simon Martinez, Justice of the Peace, the night of the decedent’s death, the latter was ‘kind of drunk’ when he left the bar and proving that he did by deposition taken from Simon Martinez before his death. “In the first place, counsel did not interpose the objection of want of a proper foundation until after the trial court had already overruled objection to the impeaching testimony of Simon Martinez, and admitted the answer of the witness. In the second place, the objection was not good even if timely made because there could be no doubt the impeaching question related to a statement of the witness to the Justice of the Peace in the course of the latter’s investigation of the accident and death at the time and place it occurred. “It impresses me, without doubt, that testimony elicited from the witness and the proposed impeaching testimony down to the trial court’s first ruling related to a conversation between the witness and Simon Martinez. When counsel finally woke up and threw in the objection of no proper foundation, he spoke too late and without merit in his objection anyway. “Undoubtedly the trial judge erred in finally refusing to admit the tendered proof of prior inconsistent statement. It probably would not have changed the result, but who can say? “Judge SWOPE has done a good job on presenting the opinion he has, but I do believe he applies too strict a rule in holding there was any confusion in the mind of Leo Martinez as to the time and place of the claimed contradictory statement. * * * Remember, the trial judge first let the impeaching question by but by a subsequent ruling kept it from the jury. I think he was right the first time.” I fully agree with what Justice SADLER said and therefore dissent. Justice SADLER has never indicated to me that he changed his mind.