In civil proceedings, the prior testimony of a witness from a trial involving the same parties and subject matter may be used to contradict or impeach that witness when the witness testifies in the subsequent civil action. Which statement best reflects this rule?

• A. It may be used to impeach only if the witness testifies in the later action.
• B. It may be admitted as evidence in chief regardless of party interest.
• C. It may never be used to contradict the witness.
• D. It may be used to impeach even if the witness does not testify in the later action.

Answer: (A)

The rule revolves around impeachment of a witness by prior sworn testimony. If a witness testified in a prior trial involving the same parties and the same subject matter, that prior testimony can be used to contradict or impeach the witness, but only when the witness actually testifies in the later civil action. If the witness does not take the stand in the subsequent case, there is nothing to impeach, so the prior testimony cannot be used for that purpose. This keeps impeachment tied to a live witness who can respond, and it prevents using prior statements to challenge credibility when there is no current testimony to attack. The other options would either treat the prior testimony as substantive evidence in chief or allow impeachment even without the witness testifying, which the rule does not permit.