holding that when witness testified that information in letter was lies, letter could not be admitted as past recollection recorded because no testimony was presented that letter correctly reflected witness’ knowledge of events at time of letter
How later courts described this case
- holding that when witness testified that information in letter was lies, letter could not be admitted as past recollection recorded because no testimony was presented that letter correctly reflected witness’ knowledge of events at time of letter
- trial court erred in admitting letter as a recorded recollection where witness testified that when she wrote the letter, it did not correctly reflect her knowledge of the events and she did not know facts that she had forgotten by the time of the trial
- witness testified the whole past recorded statement was “a lie. I lied . . . .”
- defendant accused of assaulting his mother; mother had no memory of the subject matter of her earlier statements; mother also had recanted earlier statements prior to trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Phillips
dissenting.
Under the rules of evidence now in effect I believe all of Ms. Lyde’s out-of-court statements were admissible. For one thing, I interpret Lester Caulder’s testimony as being that Ms. Lyde, in getting him to take her to the hospital, told him that defendant had hit her on the head with a hammer. For another, the statement to Dr. Pennink was related to medical treatment, I think, since it corrected the statement in the history which indicated that her head injury was such that she had no memory of the events that preceded it. Pre-injury memory or its lack can be a factor in treating a brain injury, so I understand. And her letter and written statements were properly received, I think, as past recorded recollections.