This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

During trial as part of P's cross-examination, D introduced a statement made by P nine days after the accident. The statement exonerated D from liability as a reckless driver. This was contrary to P's testimony at trial. P testified that a stranger had interviewed him at the hospital while he was under the influence of opiates and that he didn't remember what he told the stranger or what the stranger wrote and that it was not read to him. The court told the jury that the statement should only be considered as bearing on the credibility of P as a witness and not as proving any substantive fact. D objected, and the verdict went to P. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.