EVIDENCE-PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT-CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY

Authors

Abstract

W, a witness for the prosecution in a murder trial, testified that he had known the defendant about five years before, and was sure he was one of the two men who fired the fatal shots. On cross examination he was asked whether or not he had testified at a preliminary hearing to the effect that he had never known or seen the man before the date of the murder. He admitted the inconsistency, but on redirect examination was permitted to explain that he had not properly understood the question put to him at the preliminary hearing. The prosecution was then permitted to produce four witnesses who testified that W, at or about the time of the preliminary hearing, had made statements consistent with the one made upon the stand. Held, that where a witness has been discredited by proof of a prior inconsistent statement, it is proper to produce testimony that he had made prior statements consistent with that made upon the stand. State v. Emma (Mo. 1930) 26 S.W. (2d) 781.

Recommended Citation

EVIDENCE-PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT-CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 113 (1930).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss1/22