Court Opinion

ID: 9768035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:39:19.962059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:35.734147
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. The question is whether one should be allowed to impeach his own witness and under what circumstances. The majority has concluded that the State’s impeachment of Richard Roberts was merely a subterfuge to get before the jury a prior inconsistent statement which would most likely be treated by the jury as evidence of the truth of the matter, rather than be considered merely to show that Richard was not telling the truth about certain issues. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion for three reasons: First, I cannot say that the trial court manifestly abused its discretion by allowing the State to impeach Richard; second, I cannot say as a matter of law that the State was using a subterfuge; and, finally, it is my judgment that the majority has severely restricted the meaning of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 607 (Repl. 1979), so that a prior inconsistent statement can only be used when it qualifies as substantive admissible evidence under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 801. The jury was properly instructed that the statement was to be considered only to show that Richard had made a prior statement that was inconsistent with his testimony under oath, and was not to be considered as substantive evidence. In my judgment the trial court’s decision was correct. We must find a manifest abuse of discretion before we can set aside his decision. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001. Rules 103 and 104. There are cases that have held that a party cannot call a witness solely to impeach him with a prior inconsistent statement that is otherwise admissible. The cases say that to do so would be a subterfuge to get the prior statement before the jury. Whitehurst v. Whitehead, 592 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Fay, 668 F.2d 375 (8th cir. 1981); United States v. Morlang, 531 F.2d 183 (4th Cir. 1975). Butin those cases the witnesses were called for absolutely no other purpose than to impeach. Clearly, a different situation exists here. Richard Roberts was the only eyewitness to the killing and the State had to call him. Much of his testimony corroborated the essential parts of the State’s case against the appellant. If the State was to successfully prove the purposefulness of the appellant’s act, as it was entitled to do, it should have been permitted to show that Richard’s testimony had suddenly changed, since living with his father and his father’s sister, with regard to his characterization of his father’s intent. I find no manifest abuse of discretion. Since the impeachment will not be allowed on retrial it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the court erred in allowing Richard’s statement into evidence once he admitted making it. By finding that to be error the majority ignores the existence of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1001, Rule 613, and its possible effect on the issue. The majority does not cite Arkansas case law in support of its ruling but instead cites an old section from McCormick’s Evidence which has been supplemented since the adoption of Rule 613. We should reserve our judgment until it is necessary for us to reconcile our case law with Rule 613. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.