Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
Evidence > Cross-Examination, Impeachment, Corroboration & Related Issues > Impeachment, Own Witness
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to impeach its own witness where the impeachment was not mere subterfuge to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence. The court held that it need not decide whether the record showed that the State was genuinely surprised by the witness’s reversal because the witness’s testimony was “vital” to the State’s case and the trial court gave a proper limiting instruction.
The trial court did not err by admitting a witness’s out of court statements. When a State’s witness gave trial testimony inconsistent with his prior statements to the police, the State cross-examined him regarding his prior statements. After the witness denied making the statements, the trial court overruled a defense objection and admitted, for purposes of impeachment by the State, a transcript of the witness’s prior statements. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State used the guise of impeaching its own witness as subterfuge for admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence. Distinguishing prior case law, the court noted that the trial judge gave an appropriate limiting instruction, the evidence was important to the State’s case, and nothing suggested that the State expected the witness’s testimony.