Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

In making its determination the court is not bound by

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: where the witness being impeached said that she did not know the appellant. Opposing counsel objected, said should use a transcript. Appellant countered that a transcript was never made, and that the Justice of Peace even recorded over some of the tape. Court sustained the objection. After the court sustained the objection, appellant made no further reference to the issue, in the form of an offer of proof or otherwise. Issue: If the ruling was improper, did the appellant preserve the evidence for consideration pursuant to Rule 103(a)(2)? Appellant's Argument: The question itself was sufficient foundation substance of the evidence was apparent from the context in which the questions were asked. Holding: An appropriate offer of proof was not made, therefore the appellant did not preserve the evidence for consideration. Substance of the evidence was not apparent from the context in which the questions were asked: Appellant needed to argue that he could have impeached the witness if she denied making the statement by allowing the prosecution to hear the tape of the testimony at the prelim hearing or by calling as a witness someone at the hearing! NEED TO ESTABLISH AT TIME OF THE OBJECTION THAT AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS MADE AND THAT THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE WO...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online