Court Opinion

ID: 9702979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:35:31.536945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:44.473879
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
Footnote five in Johnson v. United States, 387 A.2d 1084 (D.C.App.1978), expressly affirms this court’s support for Lofty’s narrow holding, that a sua sponte cautioning instruction is required when a party, surprised by its own witness, impeaches the witness with a prior inconsistent statement in accordance with D.C. Code § 14-102 (1973). To hold, without going en banc, that a per se reversal is not mandated when such a cautioning instruction is omitted is a violation of M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310 (D.C.App.1971). Accordingly, I must dissent.