 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kelsey6/8/1998
as a juvenile when he "did it." Any prejudice to Kelsey was minimal and does not warrant reversal.
V. PRIOR STATEMENTS
Kelsey argues that the trial court erred in denying his right to introduce a prior statement in order to defend against the State's allegation that he testified untruthfully during his testimony before the jury. We disagree.
During the State's cross-examination of Kelsey, the solicitor emphasized that Kelsey's trial testimony was inconsistent with testimony he had given at the December 5, 1994 family cour-t waiver hearing and with statements he had given to SLED agent Dan Choate on September 29, 1994. In response, Kelsey called Choate to the stand and attempted to elicit testimony from him concerning Kelsey's prior September statement. The State objected, arguing the defense was trying to introduce a prior consistent statement which was impermissible under Rule 801(d)(1), SCRE. Kelsey's attorney responded, arguing that he was entitled to have the entire inconsistent statement introduced so that it could be viewed in context. The trial Judge sustained the State's objection. Kelsey did not proffer any of the excluded testimony.
Generally, where a portion of a witness's prior inconsistent statement has been introduced to impeach that witness, the entire statement is admissible in rebuttal to explain the inconsistency. See 98 C.J.S. Witnesses Section 622 at 636 (1957); Wigmore On Evidence Section 1045 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). However, the mere mention of a conversation or statement does not automatically entitle the opponent to bring out the other parts. Remaining portions which are not relevant or material in the explanation of the inconsistency are not admissible. See People v. Cowper, 496 N.E.2d 729 (111. App. Ct. 1986); State v. Eugenio, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997); 98 C.J.S. Witnesses Section 622 at 637. The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to admit such evidence. See State v. Daly, 798 S.W.2d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
At trial, the solicitor asked Kelsey if Richey's mouth was bleeding inside the car. Kelsey responded that there was a small trace of blood on Richey's mouth. The following colloquy then took place between Kelsey and the solicitor:
Q. Mr. Choate over here. You had a conversation with Mr. Choate and your lawyer was there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember Mr. Choate said, "Mr. Kelsey, was there any blood on Melanie or anywhere in that car?" You said, "No, sir, it wasn't." Didn't you?
A. I don't remember that brief conversation. I mean. I tried to write down exactly what we talked about right afterwards. I said we had a brief conversation before and that then they gave me the forms and I wrote it down.
At trial, Kelsey's attorney argued that Kelsey had a right to have the entire statement introduced so that it could be viewed in context. However, there was no attempt to explain why the other portions of the September statement were relevant or material in explaining the inconsistency. Additionally, Kelsey failed to proffer any of the excluded testimony. See State v. Anderson, 304 S.C. 551, 406 S.E.2d 152 (1991)(where no proffer of excluded testimony is made, the Court is unable to determine whether the appellant was prejudiced by the trial Judge's refusal to admit the testimony into evidence). We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection.
VI. CO-DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS
At trial, Kelsey's attorney called F.B.I. agent Harold Harrison to the stand to testify. Kelsey sought to elicit testimony from Harrison concerning statements Payne made to the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|