Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Porter was a minor. He was charged with selling marijuana and implicated Green (D) as his supplier. D was arrested and charged with supplying marijuana to a minor. At the preliminary hearing, Porter testified that D indicated to him where the marijuana could be picked up. Earlier, he had told police that D had actually given him the marijuana. Porter was cross-examined at this preliminary hearing, but not as vigorously as he would have been at a regular trial. At D's trial, Porter again changed his story. This time, he alleged that he could not remember who had given him the marijuana, because he was on LSD at the time. The prosecutor then introduced Porter's two prior statements (to the police and at the hearing) under the State's (P) prior inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule. D was convicted. He appealed, claiming that he was unable to confront and cross-examine Porter at trial, so the introduction of Porter's prior inconsistent statements violated the Confrontation Clause.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co