*1 interfering purpose building with the use of lawful such persons.” appellant other The facts disclose that was sitting alone, quietly in one of reception several chairs in the area of the office. He had small three five inch card at printed shirt to his which had on it “draft tached counselor.” Although appellee’s facts, not set forth in statement of the persons evidence does show that several conducted business in sitting appellant the office while the was in the chair. The one, except appellant no secretary, talked to him who asked doing short, absolutely what there. there is evi no appellant dence show intended to interfere with the right persons office business of the or with the to enter or leave. There is no evidence boisterous, that he was loud or anyone entering leaving that he obstructed or office did anything whatsoever, quietly than sit in a chair. Such conduct opinion offense, in our cannot be a criminal unless in a done group conspiracy with a of such size as to interfere with the public building use of a or office It is therein. also irrelevant employees during week, that the office were nervous a hectic being appellant there no responsible evidence such condition.
Judgment of the trial court is reversed with direction to
judgment
appellant.
enter
for the
ALL JUDGES CONCUR.
Reported in
Note. —
Joe Rector v. State of Indiana. July 19, Rehearing September 270S27. Filed [No. 1971. denied 1971.] *2 Tetek, Svetanoff, Gary, Appel- Bernard M. Gerald N. lant. Sendak, Hassett, F. Attorney General,
Theodore L. Robert Attorney Deputy General, Appellee. charged the crime C.J. Defendant was with
Arterburn, guilty jury kidnapping pleaded The re- thereto. Judgment finding guilty charged. turned a him was verdict im- entered thereon and to life was sentenced prisonment at the Indiana State Prison. April p.m. about 10:00 on
Appellant at was arrested pursuant call to the appellant arrested to a Shepard. informer, told the The informer police an Steve being gun point ain police he had seen a man held at gas gas stopped for at a station where car which make, model and described present. The also informer *3 gave plate number. The car and car’s license color of the the describing arresting having officers, received a radio broadcast car, appellant his stopped and car and arrested the the the custody. appellant taken The follow- companion. The was Jasper County ing day Fisher, Thomas Prosecutor executed charging appellant kidnap- affidavit with crime an the the witness, complaining ping. the The affidavit was sworn approved prosecutor. Tarrant and the Pursuant Claise W. charging issued, affidavit an arrest warrant was even to the though already Appellant under arrest. the was illegal
Appellant the first contends initial arrest was probable Appel not cause such arrest. because there was question preserved lant not for our considera has objection any Kelley tion, proper no at time. as made 148, (1958), 226 Ind. 547 State 78 N. E. 2d v. 444, (1951), 104 Beeler State 230 N. 2d 744. Ind. E. v. testimony Appellant next Police contends of State Offi tag pertaining Wolfe to an identification which he cer Lewis
637 shotgun, allegedly taken from attached to arrest, inadmis appellant’s the time of was car at tag into thereafter introduced was not sible because fruit of a search incident evidence and was the because illegal objection com comes too late since the an arrest. This arresting appellant’s witness, officer, com plaining of the panion previously existence had all testified as to the arrest, objection. shotgun without in the car at time of the merely testimony and wé of Officer Wolfe was cumulative (1968), 251 find Davis Ind. no merit the contention. v. State 472, (1946), 133, 224 Ind. 239 Adams State N. E. 2d 601 and v. testimony Also, appellant’s 69 E. 2d that the N. contention erroneously into evi Police admitted the State Officer was illegal is untenable dence because it was fruit of an arrest only objection point, because no on but was made based ground weapon on the No that the not offered in evidence. objection testimony relating to the was ever made that tag identification obtained in was inadmissible because was illegal Tyler (1968), the course of an State 250 arrest. v. 419, 422, 815, compelled Ind. 236 E. 2d N. stated: “We are we object appellant to hold that at trial for since failed to being urged, same reasons now he is deemed to have waived objections alleged first One for the errors. raise appeal ample afforded an time on in this Court when there was objection during opportunity course of the to raise the (1954), 470, Gernhart 233 Ind. 120 trial.” also: See v. Dull 180 E. N. E. 2d N. appellant’s discussed above 2d 523. Thus for the reasons merit. contention without urges, charging
Appellant him next affidavit with fatally kidnapping crime of in that it did defective *4 from the could not set forth sufficient facts court of an probable find establish cause issuance appellant in the is arrest warrant. this contention only “probable affi obvious instance a cause error. The where setting affidavit”, “charging forth accompany davit” must a 638 constituting cause, person has probable the is where
the facts alleged an crime. Where for commission of not been arrested by upon already police a officer person a arrested has been warrant, a misde probable an as where cause without arrest felony he presence, or where committed in his meanor or was being felony is probable has been or has cause to a believe charging committed, have be accom affidavit does not the require by such would panied probable affidavit. To a cause erroneously Kinnaird v. purposeless. Appellant cited has 506, point. (1968), 500, 242 E. on this State 251 Ind. N. 2d original Kin probable cause is for the arrest Where shown v. Further, appellant State, applicable. supra, naird the is not probable having by previously arrested, police officer on subsequent (and unneces prejudiced cause, the was “charging pursuant affi to a bare sary) issued arrest warrant issuance of the arrest warrant No search followed davit”. upon admissibility the war no evidence is based v. (1970), Dickens Further, in stated this Court rant. illegal, 578, is 388, “Even if an arrest 260 N. 2d 254 E. not amount to a denial of due it does has been held authority proposition that Further, process. there is for the judgment way itself, illegal arrest, in no affects in an 185, 2d People (1961), 2d 174 E. Rose N. Ill. conviction. v. being jurisdiction of also rule 673. The is not terminated person court over the Layton illegal point stated we arrest . . .” On an 489, 491, 209, 2d that: N. E. 251 Ind. if the appellant further contends that that the “It seems appellant itself, illegal, mere fact in if arrest grounds tried, for a trial. new is sufficient admissibility only illegality affects of the arrest evidence, of a search warrant. as in the case try appellant. right of the state It does not affect The remedy point would be appellant out what fails to merely the arrest appellant tried because if could not be an illegal illegal. arrest? an Must be set free in event of returned and set free California the defendant be Must immediately steps of rearrested or on the courthouse *5 do not he can tried? We under a valid warrant before believe a court should engage motions. and in such futile idle laughing judicial processes matter for do makes To the so the public.” of merit and appellant’s is no these contention For reasons fails. urges admit
Finally in appellant trial court erred that the ting evidence, impeachment purposes on cross-exami into for During nation, by appellant. the cross- a letter written the appellant, appellee in evidence examination of the introduced by appellant while a letter to Eva Lou Norris the written one crucially jail det in his letter before trial. While the was veracity appellant, or'tó the rimental to the character of the impeachable testimony, his in na of offer evidence it did some Appellant man with ture. was a married had testified that he several letter was children and that the woman to the whom just The letter that rela a friend. disclosed written was tionship letter written the woman to whom the was between friendship. objected just Appellant to perhaps more than was ground on the letter in evidence the introduction of the prosecutor trial upon for a demand before he made prosecu complete list of documents which witnesses and trial, only in the course of the tion intended use by point produced prosecutor. of We a list was witnesses demand, nature, specific made out no written nothing documents, is the list therefore there of witnesses specifically the in the can determine record from we agree alleged only request an made. record alludes to The prosecutor appellant’s counsel and ment between documents intended be used a list witnesses and given appellant prosecution preparation would be regard, testimony pertinent appel defense. . I had made lant’s counsel Mr. Tetek as follows: “. . that attorney prosecuting me with a a demand on the furnish complete list of that he intended witnesses documents using agreed in the course of this trial and to do so.”
prosecutor could not have known what documents or other evidence he intended to appel use on cross-examination lant, might who stand, not take the error therefore no give committed his failure to appellant the letter to the only before the trial. He could have known what documents going or other evidence he was to use in the State’s case suggests chief. appellant To do as require would lay bare its entire case in advance trial. Our conclu sion here is in accord with our comment in Bernard *6 688, 692, 536, 540, 230 N. E. 2d as follows: require do lay “We that the State bare its case in advance of trial nor that fishing the criminal defendant be allowed a expedition, . .”.
Judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Givan, Hunter, JJ., concur; DeBruler, J., result; concurs in Prentice, J., opinion. dissents with
Dissenting Opinion majority J. I dissent opinion insofar as Prentice, permitted the letter from (appellant) the defendant evidence, admitted into and I think that the decision of the trial court should be reversed reason of its admission. presents questions The matter determination, two basic namely: May signed by proper letter the defendant be sub- ject discovery by defendant, may and how the char- impeached? Necessarily acter of a witness be involved are the distinctions to be drawn between a defendant capacity in his capacity as the accused and in his as a witness. pertinent evidence
The to a determination of these basic issues discloses that the Lee, defendant and David an accom- plice State, witness for Tarrant, abducted Cloise prosecuting witness, period held him gun- for some of time at point, holding threatened to kill him and were so him the at they apprehended by police time were response in to an in- testimony by former’s There had accomplice call. been evening earlier- he drinking and the defendant been had accomplice’s Eva together company wife and of the beer had Norris Eva Lou Lou There was no evidence that Norris. knowledge any any prior the crime or connection with to commit it. intention of the defendant or Lee either only respect the aforementioned mention of her was with evening. having together persons earlier in the He denied Defendant took stand in his own defense. abduction, He admitted threats and intent to harm Tarrant. having having a dis- had been with Lee and Tarrant and to concerning prior be- cussion with Lee business transaction misunder- tween them and had been some over there having standings; making any threat or even but denied any argument Tarrant on occasion. with trial, let- pending wrote a incarcerated While way into hands it found its Eva Lou Norris and ter to into over Defend- prosecutor and was admitted evidence of the pro- objection. letter been relevant to the have This ant’s respects. ceedings First, admis- two it contained in either of guilt, secondly indicating indicated Defendant’s sions Defendant, an extra-marital affair between the existence of connection, man, In this it could be Eva Lou. married unfavorably upon his moral character. said reflect *7 following cross-examination, questions, answers, ob- On arguments jections place: took
<( [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] RECTOR BY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOE MR.
FISHER: Q. buddies, All huh Joe? years. For fifteen
A. Q. you Are You’re Good buddies. married Joe? married and have seven children? Yes A. sir.
Q. family you? Real man are my right Well, there,
A. her. ask wife’s Q. you family Are man Joe? Yes
A. sir. family,
Q. stay really You at home and look do after you? Yes A. sir.
Q. Norris, girl No Who’s Eva Lou Joe? friend. just Now, TETEK: MR. a second. Q. Lou Who is Eva Norris ?
MR. TETEK: Just a second now. your objection.
MR. FISHER: Make Well, you’ll MR. TETEK: I will if simmer down a little bit. COURT: Yeah. question MR. I move TETEK: to strike the from
record, your honor, I see no proper unless the foundation is laid. purpose questioning, completely this is irrelevant, it’s immaterial to the issues before this court. Well, COURT: this is party cross-examination and this testimony. has I’m particular case, been named in In this going objection. to overrule the right. MR. TETEK: All COURT: You you ask Do him. understand? Who is she? Friend, A. Mr. also, Lee and his wife and me at the years time. ago, just That’s been two about. Q. girl Lou’s old she Eva an Joe? friend She A. was fust friend.
Q. relationship? No close relationship. No close
A. you please, MR. Woud FISHER: mark this ex- state’s hibit I five believe. Q. you I’ll what show has been marked for identification you your state’s signature? number I ask exhibit five and if this is A. Could be.
Q. signature? your Is that carefully Examine it COURT: and remember now
you’re under oath. my signature. A. That could be Q. you Did write this letter to Lou Eva Norris?
IA. don’t if I know wrote that letter or not.
Q. youDo want to read it and make sure?
A. Yeah. carefully. you now answer Can Read COURT: question?
prosecutor’s I letter. A. Yes sir. wrote the
Q. Rector? letter Mr. letter. Who is the You wrote this A. It’s to Eva Lou Norris.
Q. you on in the corners I is written And ask what page? front you in- just second, am, Well, I are TETEK: MR.
tending this in evidence? to introduce intending Yes, I to introduce this am MR. FISHER: a letter I offer it as and would now into evidence written Mr. Rector impeach- purpose both of against him. and for ment an admission going Well, your honor, I, I’m TETEK: now MR. legal you give to do all argument me presume don’t want and I jury. talking this in front of jury right, COURT: All I’ll excuse the for awhile. show, prior to MR. either TETEK: record will your charge, I assuming jurisdiction on prosecuting attorney made me demand on the furnish complete awith list all witnesses and documents using that he this trial intended the course of agreed he so. do nothing, nothing ever MR. There was FISHER: furnishing documents, your said about nished the I fur- honor. list of witnesses defendant with a asked for. # Hs H* * * * Now, fact, in view that whether COURT: particular think, not this Fisher, listed and I Mr. letter was agree going that I’m with Mr. Tetek that understanding our summer that his basis last discovery wouldn’t have to be formal. right your honor. MR. FISHER: This is I don’t that this would be included COURT: But feel * * * agree I with in that even had it formal. you which your have documents motion would included would be used evidence. my objection. part TETEK: That was MR. one right. COURT: All said, part my objection I
MR. TETEK: other *9 is, completely it that it is immaterial to the at case charge. part agree COURT: That the except Court must with on this matter— go step
MR. TETEK: I’ll further. right. All
COURT: proper MR. TETEK:. has not been There foundation for laid the introduction at this time. just any if special He asked COURT: there was rela- just tionship no, man said the friend. right. MR. TETEK: I That’s heard— Well, deliberately I COURT: haven’t read this and I’m doing not so. Well, say, I TETEK: it’s MR. affidavits that are immaterial two the charged saying here. I’m not that prosecutor right have to— the does not the say I COURT: will this. any —impeach
MR. TETEK: witnesses— nit-picking, COURT: this I feel like the Court’s * * * aware of one other rule that hasn’t mentioned— (Interruption by party) outside * * * sorry sir, my thought. I’m I lost train of. were, point MR. TETEK: interruption We at of your honor, I talking we think were in view recent of perhaps decisions that should be entitled they to documents intended to use. I think is COURT: this true but I do not believe that that, additional wrong going and if I I am think to take it’s some prove decisions it That sir. comes scope you Fisher, right within that. Mr. have a of heard no to be matter what the Court’s indicated. What your position is I and want to hear it —.” foregoing, From the it is determined that the defendant ob- jected upon introduction the letter into evidence two grounds, produced i.e. that it had not been in accordance with discovery agreement it was not admissible for impeachment. ruling motion, agree- There was no formal respect production ment with to the of a list of State’s wit- trial, nesses and documents to be used at the and the record However, inconclusive as to was what covered. notwith- standing prosecutor’s agreed denial that he had to furnish documents, foregoing quoted portion I conclude from the regarded agreement record that court counsel including documents; hypothesis proceed upon I as required furnish Defendant with such the State was discovery. subject proper for documents were the premise upon the admitted the evidence trial court impeachment purposes, to be used not it whether or would not known advance could have way knowing whether or inasmuch as had no be used therefore, testify, and, it was not defendant would not the subject discovery. It that if the evidence proper follows impeachment ad- purposes, it was not not admissible all, furnished re- at inasmuch as it had missible *10 agreement, the sponse pre-trial to the the basis of which was Additionally, objection. the maintained that State defendant’s subject discovery, proper inasmuch as the letter was not a by prepared had defendant. the aspect Leaving, moment, impeachment the the the turning to or the our attention whether and evidence disclosure, pre-trial its otherwise entitled to defendant was determining specifi appears no this state there to be case in produce cally compel the state to docu that prepared; good appears but no reason ments that he himself why by question same stand this should not determined the be general, applicable discovery criminal in ards to in cases recently of Bernard standards in the cases have been declared 536; (1967), Johns State 688, 248 Ind. 230 N. E. 2d v. v. 60, (1968), 172, 251 240 Antrobus v. State E. 2d and Ind. N. Briefly stated, (1970), 420, 253 254 2d 873. while E.N. by discovery required con is not favor of accused guarantee recognized process, stitutional’ of due has been a trial is the inherent that within nature of court power discovery. power types various This must order discretionary, is faced with two be since trial court often authority However, possible modern lines action. the best power be but rather a lim holds not to a full discretion discovery against proceedings entitled to ited one. To be utilize State, necessary defendant must show such that case, showing discovery preparation upon of his such a granted, showing compelling a more absent “should be tending prove people of facts that such an order un would hamper fairly prosecution public or do a disservice to the v. People (1959), 619, 628, interest.” Johnson 356 Mich. “* * * 739, agree judge N. 2d has W. 744. We the trial requested limited discretion when a list of witnesses is granted showing it should be the State makes unless * * paramount interest over Ber that of the defendant. *.” “* * * v. State, supra. discovery applica nard The rules of proceedings applicable in civil in Indiana courts ble are not proceedings. However, techniques such in criminal of dis covery applicable in those rules often crim embodied will proceedings power inal and the trial court has the inherent implement discovery techniques necessary pro such as are * * hearing. defendant a full and fair *.” Antrobus vide the State, supra. justice society interests of “The are best v. complete served a full and disclosure of material evidence.” Dorsey 800, 254 Ind. 260 N. E. 2d appear pres- parties, It does not that at the time the in the court, agreed concerning ence and with the sanction of the production documents, any of a list of witnesses and claim of paramount any interest and non-disclosure was made as to any excepted agreement. documents were from the We say power pro- cannot trial court no to order the *11 letter, although may duction of the be that it not have could Conversely, required to do so. it is clear from the cases could, discretion, that it produc- cited its have ordered the question. letter in circumstances, tion of the In view of the every right agreement the defendant had to believe subject all extended to witnesses and documents that were to discovery; and the trial court has indicated that this was the agreement. State, then, of substance was under com-
647 agreement by pulsion, by informal court, sanctioned question. produce letter in permitting
The trial court’s basis for the letter to be intro- impeachment duced into evidence was it was for purposes accordingly only subject discovery. would not have been which, It certain unexplained, also contained admissions if devastating could be If pur- defense. inadmissible for poses given impeachment, only by of reason excluding trial court for pale it from discovery of the agreement, lay squarely follows letter within its ambit. ruling that the impeaching letter was admissible as evi-
dence, the trial court had reference to its contents that re-
unfavorably upon
general
flected
the defendant’s
moral char-
By
provided:
acter.
questions affecting
statute it is
“In all
credibility
witness,
general
may
of a
moral character
given
(Acts
1905,
169,
evidence.”
240,
ch.
1956
§
Repl.
9-1608, originally
Burns
1881,
Ind. Stat.
Acts of
ch.
§
36,
230.)
may
Character evidence
relate to a witness or
§
defendant,
to a
relating
but
quite
the rules
thereto are
dif-
ferent. The
may
character
anof
accused is not in issue attacked,
not be
put
by
unless he
giving
shall
it in issue
evi-
good character,
denc of his
only
at which time
evidence relat-
ing
particular
to that
trait of character
is relevant
Kahlenbeck v. charged
admissible;
crime
(1888),
118,
460;
119
21
Ind.
N. E.
and such moral character
only by
proof
be shown
reputation,
proof
specific
immorality.
acts
Griffith
163,
tack character by witness, passed upon first Court but a which was this as case, (1874), 49 In in Fletcher v. Ind. Court said: “* * * rights enactment, defend- Prior such of a separate privileges dis- ant of a witness were and and the testify ; passage tinct occupies since its a defendant who elects to but witness, position and defendant and both rights person privileges thus combines in his and he true, not think it should of result his But while this is do both. we any change practice. In in the law rules rights, capacity witness, as a is entitled to the same any subject rules, and to the other is same as witness. defendant, rights, his character of entitled to the same same he has the possessed protection, en- as were and passage
joyed by in a defendants criminal cause before the rights question. considering of the act in of the of the fact that we When are sight defendant, appellant in his character of we lose right witness; testify as a he has the they privileges question, when should be decided his as a witness called are he is reference to the fact that without * * a defendant also. rule, but particular from the Fletcher confusion resulted No authorizing passed the introduction Act was when the 1881 general (reputation) into evidence moral character a witness’ credibility, theory paradox was his upon that it went to among followed, magnified. first them In the cases held being (1882), 84 has Robinson defendant, applies takes the stand if he the statute to the appears witness, other witnesses. rule as well as to as a reason, necessity than of is unrealistic to be more one distinguish as a jurors the assailed expect between justified only be in that as a defendant and can witness be to force would defendant from statute’s to exclude the testimony to that of other grant a credence not ascribed Being witness, he may equally as be credible. witnesses who scrutiny It other subjected as witnesses. to the same must be capacity he, should logically in his as witness follows witnesses, included same other be accorded immunities by only among proven his character them that acts, reputation, specific all the and not is rendered important more reason his character as being imperiled. unavoidably statutory provision reputa as used in this means
Character *13 general tion, reputed and it is the moral character of a wit general reputation may ness his or that be State shown. v. (1879), Bloom 54. 68 Ind.
Ordinarily
proof
impeached by
par-
a witness
be
of
cannot
ticular
misconduct,
extraneous
and
moral character
acts of
impeached by proof
specific
of a witness cannot be
of
acts
v.
immorality. Niemeyer McCarty,
688,
(1943),
al.
221
et
Ind.
154 A. R.
v.
State,
115;
supra.
51
E.N.
2d
L.
Griffith
Contrary
prevails
giving
to the rule
in the case
evi-
precluding
dence
relative to
character of a defendant and
reputation
evidence of
specific
his bad
for a
until he has
trait
put
reputation
by presenting
sup-
first
his
in issue
evidence to
port it,
reputation
veracity
truth
or
a witness for
and
general
may
for
moral
character
shown
be
to overcome
presumption
good general
his
impeach
his
character and
credibility;
good
may
reputation
and the evidence of his
not
be offered
impeach
until an effort shall have
been made to
first
v.
it. Johnson
(1863),
There why are a of reasons the letter was not ad impeachment. for impeach missible If it was intended to defendant’s charged, character for the trait related to the crime being it was peace as inadmissible irrelevant to the trait of quietude and for the further reason defendant had previously not put such character in into issue. If it was impeach tended to character, witness, the defendant’s as a for veracity truth and being was inadmissible as to irrelevant such traits. It has been reputa held that evidence of the bad tion of a chastity proper female witness for virtue not impeach veracity. character for truth and Kid v. well apparent
The evidence of Defendant’s Lou affair with Eva Norris, letter, against gen- disclosed reflect his reputation character; however,
eral it would be his moral general morality on im- would be concerned with which we peachment. shown, impeached previously As he could not Niemeyer McCarty, proof specific supra, and v. acts. State, supra. Griffith ground impeaching proper
A evi- for the of the letter as use may have revealed The fact the letter dence was laid. certainly relationship had denied would him, If impeachment. it did to an discredit but not amount evidence, it impeaching the State were to use the letter as necessary would for it have asked the de- have first fully fendant if to have he had not written such a letter and it, giving opportunity identified thus him a full to refresh did, memory having it, he in written if fact admit to meaning. perhaps testimony explain qualify or offer its If, having circumstances, under such written denied letter, impeach. could have been introduced by proof prior *14 may impeached his state- of
A not be witness testimony contradictory at of, with, or ments inconsistent laying a founda- the is first trial unless a foundation laid. ground impeachment of on the tion the a witness testi- from those out of court different made statements questioned did to, whether he must be as to fied the witness may oppor- statements, that he have the in order make such them, correcting explaining tunity denying, admitting, or of alleged inconsistent state- place and where the the time and they presence made, person in whose ments as well the were brought made, clearly be to the attention of must were Witnesses, (1960), there and cases I.L.E. 239 witness. 30 § cited. mentioned, was no evidence in previously there
As any connecting to crime way Lou Norris in Eva record relating purely any charged therefore, her was col- matter to the issues of the case. lateral * * “* itself, subject rule as as the law It is a old far all which fall so short exceptions, of of numerous facts unprofitable case that deem we to notice them, that substantive evidence in both civil and criminal cases must be confined to the facts embraced within is joined, sues not form a competent and that no such evidence is that does proof naturally link in the chain of and reasonably tends to establish some fact in material the case * ** parties. as made between the And the law will not permit depart issue, State to from the and introduce evi dence of other extraneous offenses or misconduct that have no natural are pending charge, connection with the and which prejudice calculated to the accused in his defense.” Dunn . State (1904), 174, 162 Ind. 70 N. 521 E. v. general rule, impeached by As a a witness cannot be con- tradicting him as to collateral immaterial matters and ac- cordingly, brings party where a out such matters on cross- may answers, examination he not contradict the witnesses’ but Witnesses, (1960), is bound them. 30 I.L.E. cases § asked, cross-examination, there cited. is Where witness on questions purpose certain collateral and immaterial ground laying impeachment, cross-examining party for an is bound witness’ answers and cannot introduce evi- dence show that answers Stout were false. v. State (1910), 395, 174 Ind. 92 N. E. and Miller 255, 91 174 Ind. N. E. 930 and cases there cited. “The of a witness on ref- answers cross-examination with to an erence to matters relevant issue are not conclusive and may by independent proof purpose be contradicted for the firmly impeachment. is But it established that the answer merely on cross-examination as of witness collateral binding cross-examiner, on the matter not be are, principal contradicted. reasons the rule undoubt- edly, but for its enforcement the in a issues cause would indefinitely, multiplied controversy the real be merits of the sight testimony be lost mass would imma- jurors points, perplexed thus
terial the minds of would confused, distracted, and their attention and costs cial Am. Jur. 433. wearied *15 litigation increased, judi- enormously would investigations would become almost interminable.” The test the matter as whether is collateral whether the seeking purposes party it for the introduce contradiction part 98 C.J.S. his case. prove it as entitled to
would be 654. foregoing reasons, inadmissible the letter was
For the ruling put the was to evidence, erroneous and the effect issue, con- without character moral defendant’s by such jury say influenced that the were not sent. I cannot manifestly appears the defendant that it evidence Accordingly, I reverse would prejudiced by evidence. such court. trial 2d Reported in 271 N. E. Note. — v. State Indiana. Austin Summerlin July 19, 1971.] Filed 1070S257. [No.