context: The witness in Moffett, like the witnesses in the instant case, admitted making the prior statement but insisted that the contents were untrue. Moffett, 456 So.2d at 717. The Court in Moffett explained that where a nonparty witness admitted making the prior out-of-court statements, the statements where reduced to written form, should never be introduced into evidence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 431 So.2d 468, 473
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach
citation_a.sentence: Id.; see Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 473 (Miss.1983) (recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach); Sims v. State, 313 So.2d 388, 391 (Miss.1975) (finding that witness who denied that defendant made incriminating statements could be impeached by showing that witness told third party that defendant made such statement; however, such statement was found to be admissible only for impeachment purposes); see also Murphy v. State, 336 So.2d 213, 216-17 (Miss.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1076, 97 S.Ct. 819, 50 L.Ed.2d 795 (1977) (defendant entitled to instruction that prior inconsistent statement was not to be used as proof of guilt).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: defendant entitled to instruction that prior inconsistent statement was not to be used as proof of guilt
citation_b.sentence: Id.; see Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 473 (Miss.1983) (recognizing that evidence of extra judicial statements by nonparty witness was admissable only to impeach); Sims v. State, 313 So.2d 388, 391 (Miss.1975) (finding that witness who denied that defendant made incriminating statements could be impeached by showing that witness told third party that defendant made such statement; however, such statement was found to be admissible only for impeachment purposes); see also Murphy v. State, 336 So.2d 213, 216-17 (Miss.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1076, 97 S.Ct. 819, 50 L.Ed.2d 795 (1977) (defendant entitled to instruction that prior inconsistent statement was not to be used as proof of guilt).