California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bassett v. Crisp, 113 Cal.App.2d 295, 248 P.2d 171 (Cal. App. 1952):
Appellant urges that the witness here had merely failed to testify to a material fact as expected and so respondent had no basis for impeaching his own witness. However, the testimony must be held adverse and hostile, because it tended to show that appellant did not drive through a series of red lights, that the lights, if red, were not plainly visible, that the lights were not seen by the guests in defendant's car, and that defendant had not been warned about the red light at the scene of the accident. The situation thus falls within the rule that a party may impeach his own witness by the use of prior inconsistent statements where he has been surprised and damaged by the witness' testimony. People v. LeBeau, supra.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.