Court Opinion

ID: 9613524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:17:49.234489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:29.850175
License: Public Domain

Oxner, Justice.
I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice but desire to add the following:
Where it is shown that a witness has made inconsistent statements, it is proper to permit the witness to explain such inconsistency by relating whatever circumstances would naturally remove it. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Volume 3, Section 1044; 70 C. J., Witnesses, Section 1031. Under this well established rule, the witness Samuel Marshall could explain why he made the inconsistent affidavits and if necessary to a full explanation, could go into the con*320versation he had with Bellinger. Toa limited extent, at least, he was allowed to do so. But the Court erred in going further and permitting the State to bolster this explanation by the testimony of Bellinger. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Volume 3, Section 1046.