D was convicted of second degree assault. The prosecuting attorney, ostensibly for the purpose of laying a foundation for impeachment, asked D questions concerning D's prior inconsistent statements, using a purported manuscript of a wire recording. D neither confirmed nor denied making the statements, answering, "I don't know" or "I don't deny it or confirm it." The prosecutor failed to follow this up on rebuttal by proving or attempting to prove that the prior statements were actually made. Appellant contended this was error. Held: Conviction reversed. Such conduct was extremely prejudicial and constituted reversible error. State v. Yoakum, 137 Wash. Dec. 129, 222 P. 2d 181 (1950).
James M. Taylor,
Evidence—Witnesses—Proof of Prior Inconsistent Statements,
27 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol27/iss1/9