State v. Gomes

The majority opinion correctly states the general rule followed in New Hampshire forbidding any substantive use of prior inconsistent statements. This rule is as binding on me as it is on the bench and bar of this State and, until changed by the legislature or this court, should be respected. The purpose of this special concurrence is to indicate that if a minority of this court should develop to change the rule, I would join them.

Distinguished commentators have approved general substantive use of prior inconsistent statements. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1018, at 996 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); C.…