Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

593 So. 2d 431

Docket No. 23187-KA.

State v. Taylor

STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Lamar TAYLOR, Appellant.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided January 22, 1992.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1992-01-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that a prior inconsistent statement is not substantive proof of guilt. You are the ones to make factual determinations about evidence that you hear.... Prior contradictory statements are admitted only to attempt to discredit the witness, not to show that the contradictory statements are true.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 628 So. 2d 27 - State v. Carey

Relies on 304 So. 2d 300 - State v. Kaufman · State v. Banks · State v. Willis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-01-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2010

10 state decisions

70199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mayer, Smith & Roberts by Mark A. Goodwin and Caldwell Roberts, Jr., Shreveport, for appellant.

¶2*432 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, Paul J. Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Kenneth B. Pennywell and Tommy J. Johnson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Shreveport, for appellee.

¶3Before MARVIN, HIGHTOWER and VICTORY, JJ.

¶4MARVIN, Chief Judge.

¶5Finding merit in two of Taylor's assignments, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶6Hampton, a witness at Taylor's trial, distinctly admitted saying at his guilty plea proceeding that Taylor was involved in the armed robbery from its inception. Hampton's admission of his prior inconsistent statement accomplished his impeachment as a witness at Taylor's trial.

¶7Once Hampton's impeachment had been accomplished, the narration or transcript of his prior inconsistent statement was not admissible over Taylor's objection. LCE Arts. 613, 607D(2). See State v. Parrish, 434 So.2d 475, 478 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1983), writ denied, and cases cited therein. See also State v. Hookfin, 476 So.2d 481, 486 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985).

¶8We cannot conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the erroneously admitted evidence did not contribute to the verdict. The trial court's admission of the evidence thus constitutes reversible, and not harmless, error. State v. Banks, 439 So.2d 407 (La.1983); State v. White, 559 So.2d 541 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990).

¶9Taylor also complains of the trial court's denial of his request to instruct the jury, at the close of Officer Schach's testimony, that the evidence of Hampton's prior inconsistent statement to police concerning Taylor's involvement in the robbery, which Hampton denied making, was admissible solely to impeach Hampton and not as substantive evidence of Taylor's guilt. The court gave a limiting instruction only at the end of the trial.

¶10Evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, if admissible, is admissible solely to attack the credibility of a witness. Art. 607D(2). When the defendant requests a contemporaneous jury instruction, the trial court must caution the jury, at the time the impeaching evidence is introduced, that the prior inconsistent statement is not substantive proof of guilt. State v. Kaufman, 304 So.2d 300 (La.1974); State v. Willis, 241 La. 796, 131 So.2d 792 (1961).

¶11If any witness on remand is impeached by his or her prior inconsistent statement, the trial court shall, on the request of a party, contemporaneously instruct and caution the jury of the limited purpose of the prior inconsistent statement.

¶12LCE Art. 613 requires that a distinct foundation be laid before evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach a witness. The witness's attention must be fairly directed to the particular statement and he must be given the opportunity to admit the "fact" of his prior inconsistent statement. If the witness fails to distinctly admit the particular statement, the extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement is admissible. Art. 613 and Comments.

¶13We do not address the other assignments.

¶14

DECREE

¶15Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

/593/so2d/431 · .json · Public domain