State v. Butler

Melico Butler (defendant) was charged with robbery. Separately, Anthony Nichols was also charged with the robbery. At Butler’s trial, Butler called Nichols as a witness. Nichols testified that he and another accomplice had committed the robbery and that Butler was not involved. Nichols also testified that he had not given a statement to police. On cross-examination, the prosecution (plaintiff) asked Nichols about a conversation he had with Detective John Maia. Nichols admitted to speaking with Maia but denied that he had identified his accomplice to Maia. The prosecution then showed Nichols a typewritten, unsigned statement that identified Butler as Nichols’s accomplice. Nichols testified that he had never seen the statement or identified Butler as his accomplice. The prosecution then called Maia as a witness. Maia testified that he had typed the document on the night of the robbery and that the document summarized Nichols’s statement to him on that night. Maia testified that Nichols had refused to sign the statement after Maia showed it to him on the night it was made. The prosecution offered the typewritten document as evidence, and the court permitted the introduction, over Butler’s objection, as a prior inconsistent statement by Nichols. The court instructed the jury that it was to use the document for only the purpose of impeaching Nichols’s credibility. Butler was convicted, and he appealed.