Corbett v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when the witness testified that she did not remember what occurred on the day in question, there could not be an implied inconsistency
• suggesting that victims may change their prospective testimony because of loss of memory, selective amnesia, or untruthfulness
• holding prior inconsistent statement exception not satisfied when witness cannot remember events described in pretrial statement
• holding a witness “truly devoid of memory of an event lacks the ability to testify fully and accurately about it, not the willingness to do so”
• “When a witness’s claim of lack of memory amounts to deliberate evasion, inconsistency is implied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).