Hooper v. State

The State asks us to overturn prior cases holding that testimony given under oath at a prior trial and subject to the penalty of perjury is admissible for the purpose of contradiction or impeachment but not as substantive evidence.

The Court of Criminal Appeals, noting that it was "bound by the decisions of [this Court]," held that it had "no alternative to the conclusion that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the prior inconsistent statement of the prosecutrix could be considered substantive evidence."1 We reverse and remand.

John Edward Hooper was initially convicted of two…