Short answer. No springing it on them. Rule 132, Section 14 requires you to first lay the predicate: the statement's time, place, and persons present must be put to the witness, who must be asked whether they made it and given a chance to explain, and any written statement must be shown to them first.
What the law says
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her present testimony, the statements must be related to him or her, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he or she must be asked whether he or she made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them.
Rule 132, Section 14 — How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the statements be in writing[.] they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him or her concerning them.
Rule 132, Section 14 — How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. Read the full provision →
Why the rule requires laying a predicate first
Before you can use a witness's own prior inconsistent statement against them, Section 14 requires that the statements must be related to him or her, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. This step gives the witness a fair, specific reminder of what statement is being referred to, rather than confronting them with a vague or generalized accusation of inconsistency.
The witness has to be asked and given a chance to explain
It is not enough to describe the circumstances — the witness must also be asked whether he or she made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. This step matters because it gives the witness the opportunity to admit, deny, or clarify the earlier statement before the impeaching evidence is brought in, rather than being blindsided by a contradiction raised for the first time through some other source.
The extra step for written statements
Where the prior statement was in writing, the rule adds a further safeguard: it must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him or her concerning them. That means you cannot question a witness about the contents of a document they supposedly wrote or signed without first physically showing it to them, which prevents a party from describing or mischaracterizing a writing before the witness has even had a chance to see it.
What this means for how you actually prepare
Because the rule's own wording makes these steps a precondition to this particular method of impeachment, preparing to confront a witness with an earlier inconsistent statement means gathering the specifics — when, where, to whom, and in what form the statement was made — well before you reach that point in the examination, and having any written statement ready to physically show the witness rather than simply describing it aloud.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 13 — Party may not impeach his or her own witness
- Rule 132, Section 15 — Exclusion and separation of witnesses