Court Opinion

ID: 9863240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:17:43.415606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:22.544924
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Implicated in the second ground of error is an effort by the prosecution to lay a predicate for impeaching appellant through selfcontradiction — by proof of inconsistent statements. It is hornbook law that the predicate consists of asking the witness “whether he made the alleged contrar dictory statement,” and then giving him an opportunity to deny it and prepare to disprove it, or to admit making it and explain the statement. Ray, Texas Law of Evidence (Third Edition) § 692, 1 Texas Practice 633.
As recounted in both the majority and dissenting opinions, counsel for the State framed her questions to appellant in terms of whether he “recalled” or “remembered” making a certain statement. A negative response to such a question is not a denial that he made it. Huff v. State, 576 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Cr.App.1979):
“During the lengthy cross-examination of appellant’s wife, the prosecutor repeatedly failed to elicit a denial of the prior statement of the witness before reading the grand jury testimony. ... On at least 14 occasions, much as in the example above, the prosecutor read the testimony to the witness and asked if she remembered making the statement, without first eliciting a denial of the prior statement. This use intersected into evidence a large portion of the grand jury testimony that was inadmissible [emphasis added].”
Id., at 647.1
Because the prosecutor in the instant cause similarly failed first to elicit a denial of the prior statement, she likewise interjected into evidence a large portion of a purported prior statement that was otherwise inadmissible. For failure of the prosecutor to lay a proper predicate her reading of portions of a prior statement was improper impeachment. Huff, supra, at 648.
For that reason as well as the reasons developed by Judge Miller, I respectfully dissent.

. In the alluded to "example above" the prosecutor read two questions and answers of purported grand jury testimony and then asked, "Do you remember saying that to the Grand Jury?” The witness answered, in part, “I don’t remember anything in the Grand Jury. It has been a year ago and I just don’t know.” Ibid.