§ SECTION 158 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER X — OF EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Impeaching credit of witness

Three ways to undermine a witness. His credit may be impeached — by the adverse party, or (with the court’s consent) by the party who called him — through unworthy-of-credit testimony, proof of bribery, or his own former inconsistent statements.

How to read Section 158

A witness’s credibility can be attacked in three defined ways — by others who distrust him, by proof he was bribed, or by his own earlier contradictions.

Who may impeach

The adverse party — or, with the court’s consent, the party who calls the witness (a hostile witness).

The three ways

(a) witnesses who believe him unworthy of credit; (b) proof of bribery or corrupt inducement; (c) his former inconsistent statements.

The Explanation

An impeaching witness gives no reasons in chief; his reasons come out in cross, and those answers are final (unless false).

The bare Act

The section in its own words — three modes, an Explanation, and two illustrations.

Section 158 · verbatim

The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him—

(a) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;

(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;

(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

Explanation.—A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

Illustrations

(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B. C says that he delivered the goods to B. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had not delivered goods to B. The evidence is admissible.

(b) A is accused of the murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound of which he died. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that B, when dying, did not declare that A had given B the wound of which he died. The evidence is admissible.

In short: to impeach a witness is to attack his credibility — to persuade the court that he should not be believed. The right belongs to the adverse party and, with the court’s consent, to the party who called the witness (dovetailing with the hostile-witness power in § 157). The section then fixes three channels, and only three. (a) By calling witnesses who, from their knowledge of him, testify that he is unworthy of credit. (b) By proof that he was bribed, accepted the offer of a bribe, or took any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence. (c) By proof of former statements that are inconsistent with any part of his evidence liable to be contradicted — the classic prior inconsistent statement. The Explanation disciplines the first mode: the impeaching witness may not, in examination-in-chief, volunteer his reasons for distrusting the other; he may be asked them in cross, but those answers — being collateral to credit — cannot be contradicted (a false one, though, exposes him to a false-evidence charge). Both illustrations are of mode (c): a witness who now swears he delivered goods, or that a dying man named his killer, may be met with proof that he earlier said the opposite.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 155 — the three ways of impeaching a witness’s credit.

Glossary

impeach the credit

Attack the witness’s credibility — that he should not be believed.

adverse party / calling party with consent

Who may impeach — the latter is the hostile-witness situation (§ 157).

unworthy of credit (mode a)

Witnesses who, knowing him, believe he cannot be trusted.

bribed / corrupt inducement (mode b)

Proof the witness was paid or induced to give evidence.

former inconsistent statements (mode c)

Earlier statements that contradict his present evidence.

the Explanation

The impeaching witness’s reasons: not in chief, but on cross; the answers are final unless false.

The picture

Three defined channels attack a witness’s credibility — and the classic one is his own earlier contradiction.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The three ways (a)-(c)Explanation & illustrations

three waysUnworthy of credit, bribery, or a prior contradiction

In one lineCredit may be impeached by (a) witnesses who think him unworthy, (b) proof of bribery, or (c) his own former inconsistent statements — by the adverse party, or the caller with leave.

(a) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;(a) witnesses who think him unworthypeople who know the witness may testify that they believe him not credible.

(b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;(b) bribery or corrupt inducementproof that he was paid or induced to testify strikes at the heart of his credit.

(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.(c) former inconsistent statementshis own earlier words, inconsistent with his evidence, may be proved.

ExampleThe adverse party may call an employer who says the witness is a known liar (a), prove he was paid to testify (b), or produce his earlier signed statement saying the opposite (c).

✗ Not thisThe calling party may use these too — but only with the court’s consent (the hostile-witness situation). And the modes are closed — three, and only three.

explanation & (c)The impeacher’s reasons — and the prior-contradiction cases

In one lineAn impeaching witness gives no reasons in chief (only on cross, where the answers are final); the illustrations show a prior inconsistent statement being proved.

Explanation.—A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.reasons: not in chief, on cross — answers finalthe impeaching witness may not volunteer his reasons in chief; asked on cross, his answers are collateral and not contradictable.

(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B. C says that he delivered the goods to B. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had not delivered goods to B. The evidence is admissible.(a) prior inconsistent statement — admissiblehis earlier ‘I had not delivered’ may be proved against his present ‘I delivered’.

(b) A is accused of the murder of B. C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound of which he died. Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that B, when dying, did not declare that A had given B the wound of which he died. The evidence is admissible.(b) prior inconsistent statement — admissiblehis earlier denial of the dying declaration may be proved against his present account.

ExampleBoth illustrations are of mode (c): what the witness said before — the opposite of what he says now — is admissible to impeach him, because his evidence is ‘liable to be contradicted’.

✗ Not thisThe Explanation limits mode (a): an impeaching witness cannot lecture the court on his reasons in chief. His grounds are drawn out in cross, and there they are final.

Connected provisions

§ 157 · back

IEA 1872, § 155

Carried forward — the three ways of impeaching a witness’s credit.

BSA 2023 § 158 — Impeaching credit of witness