Court Opinion

ID: 9678068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:09:52.898216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.659377
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
On rehearing, the State contends that the evidence that the teller had embezzled a portion of the money alleged to have been taken in the robbery could not be used as impeachment evidence against the teller. The State urges that this evidence falls under Rules of Evidence 607, 608, and 609 governing impeachment by opinion or reputation showing the witness’s character for untruthfulness.
There are numerous ways that a witness can be impeached that do not pertain to character, i.e., inability to observe the matter about which the witness testified, their motive for testifying against another party, and the fist goes on. See Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Inconsistent statements about the matter on trial can be used to impeach. Virts v. State, 739 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Roberts v. State, 963 S.W.2d 894, 901 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.). In the present case, the statement by this witness about the amount of money taken in the robbery could be shown to be inaccurate because of this witness’s embezzlement. This evidence went to one of the basic elements in the case. It was not a collateral matter involving a character trait of the witness of the lack of truth and veracity. It could be used to show an inaccuracy of her testimony in this case, which the jury could consider, and also would tend to demonstrate that Dotson did not secret and fail to return some of the money taken in the robbery. This testimony is more than impeachment, it goes directly to one of the elements of the case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.