Jeffcoat v. State

• Decision Date: 18 January 1915
• Citation: 108 Miss. 585,67 So. 56
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JEFFCOAT v. STATE

67 So. 56

108 Miss. 585

JEFFCOAT v. STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 18, 1915

October 1914

APPEAL from the circuit court of Montgomery county. HON. J. A. TEAT Judge.

Chester Jeffcoat was convicted of a crime and appeals.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Thompson & Witty and J. T. Dunn, for appellant.

The state, over the protest of appellant, was permitted by the trial court to bolster its witnesses, after the defense had attacked his testimony by prior inconsistent statements and conduct, by showing that at other prior times this witness had made statements in accord with the testimony he was then giving. We submit that this was fatal error. In Jones on Evidence (2d Pocket Ed. 1911), on page 1112, et seq., it is said: "The rule has been sometimes declared that, after an attempt has been made to impeach a witness by showing his contradictory statements, proof may be received that he had affirmed the same thing before on another occasion, and that he is still consistent with himself. But it is clear that this view is contrary to the great weight of authority. If a witness is discredited by proof of contradictory statements at different times, it is no restoration of his credit to show that, at still other times, he has made statements in accordance with his testimony. On the same principle, such a witness cannot be corroborated by proof that, on a former occasion, he has made a sworn statement similar to his present testimony." In Head v. State, 44 Miss 751, our court lays down the same rule: "For the purpose of discrediting a witness, it is competent to prove that he made discordant statements, at other times and places, but to re-establish credibility, or to support what he has deposed on the trial, it is inadmissible to prove that he has made substantially the same statements to a third person. Many years ago the British courts received such testimony; afterwards its propriety was doubted, and finally repudiated. The weight of authority and reason is against it." See, also, Johnson v. State, 32 So. 49; Williams v. State, 31 So. 198; Boyd v. State, 36 So. 527.

Ross A. Collins, Attorney-General for state.

The third assignment relates to alleged error in permitting the witness, Luther Brazwell, to testify in regard to questions asked him, and the answers given to the same, in the first trial of appellant's case in the circuit...