## Facts

- Tacoma police responded near midnight to a report that a burglary was in progress at a pharmacy.
- Officers arrived near the rear entrance and saw three men run from the back door; an officer pursued one fleeing suspect after shouting “Halt, Police” and firing shots.
- The pharmacy showed signs of forced entry and burglary.
- Green and two co-defendants, including Charles Gaither, were charged with second-degree burglary.
- Before trial, Gaither gave police a detailed written statement describing the burglary and implicating Green.
- At trial, Gaither testified that Green did not participate; the prosecutor claimed surprise and was permitted to impeach Gaither using the prior written statement.
- Gaither asserted the statement referred to a different person named “Green”; the State introduced additional testimony to link the statement to Nathaniel Leon Green and to corroborate details.
- The trial court instructed that the prior statement was admitted only for impeachment, not for its truth.
- Green was convicted and appealed, arguing the impeachment was improper and prejudicial.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor could claim “surprise” and impeach a State witness with a prior inconsistent written statement despite not re-interviewing the witness before trial.
2. Whether using the prior statement and corroborating testimony effectively placed inadmissible hearsay before the jury as substantive evidence, denying a fair trial.
3. Whether any error in the impeachment process required reversal under a fair-trial/harmless-error standard.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing impeachment of Gaither with his prior inconsistent statement based on the State’s surprise.
- The court concluded that limiting instructions and corroborating evidence prevented any arguable impeachment error from rendering the trial unfair.
- Any potential misuse of the impeachment evidence was, at most, harmless in light of the overall record.

## Legal Principles

- A party may, in the trial court’s discretion, impeach its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement when the witness gives materially different testimony and surprise is shown or reasonably inferred.
- Prior inconsistent statements admitted for impeachment are not substantive proof unless otherwise admissible; the trial court may limit their use through instructions.
- Appellate review of evidentiary error in criminal cases focuses on whether the defendant received a fair trial; nonprejudicial error does not require reversal.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Green’s burglary conviction, ruling that impeachment of a State witness with a prior inconsistent statement was permissible on a showing of surprise, and that limiting instructions and corroborating evidence supported a determination that Green received a fair trial despite the challenged impeachment.


State v. Green, 71 Wash. 2d 372, 428 P.2d 540 (Wash. 1967)