Court Opinion

ID: 9664431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:18:58.950118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.323449
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On rehearing appellant calls attention to our erroneous statement that the trial court instructed a verdict for appellees. We are glad to correct our statement. The fact is that the trial court took the case from the jury on its own motion, discharged the jury, and entered judgment for appel-lees.
Appellant also says that we erred in holding that the written statement of the witness Geoffrey Williams should have been introduced in evidence. It is evident that appellant has misinterpreted our statement. We merely stated that the statement was not introduced in evidence, which is a fact; and that it was not shown in the record, which is also a fact. We did not say that the instrument should have been introduced in evidence.
 We agree with appellant’s statement of the law: “ * * * such statement was not admissible in evidence because the party making such statement admitted that he had made the same. The statement would have been admissible only for impeachment purposes, and since the witness admitted making the statement, then the statement is not admissible.” It is only when a witness denies making a written statement which contains assertions in conflict with his later testimony that the written statement becomes admissible for impeachment purposes only.
In this case the witness on cross-examination said that he had signed a written statement. But he did not testify or admit that the statement contained assertions in conflict with his testimony from the witness stand. At most his testimony may be taken to mean that his written statement omitted to say that the truck tipped in 'the course of coming to a sudden stop as it rounded the corner. In our opinion such omission under the circumstances did 'not constitute a conflict. As the written statement is not shown in the record (we *181do not say it should have been), it was of course impossible for us to check it further against the witness’ testimony from the stand.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.