Contradicción por declaraciones escritas previas en juicio

Explicación Simple

En un juicio, un testigo puede ser cuestionado sobre lo que escribió antes. Si alguien quiere usar lo que escribió para decir que no dice la verdad, primero debe preguntarle si hizo esa escritura.

Es como cuando un amigo te dice que nunca dijo algo, y tú le muestras un mensaje de texto donde lo dice. Primero le preguntas si recuerda haberlo escrito antes de mostrarle la prueba.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan es testigo en un juicio por robo. Durante el juicio, el abogado de la defensa le pregunta sobre un informe que Juan escribió antes. Si Juan niega haberlo escrito, el abogado debe mostrarle el informe para que explique lo que quiso decir.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

Va. Code § 19.2-268.1 - Contradiction by prior inconsistent writing (Subdivision (b)(i) of Supreme Court Rule 2:613 derived in part from this section). A witness in a criminal case may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, relative to the subject matter of the proceeding, without such writing being shown to him; but if it is intended to contradict such witness by the writing, his attention must, before such contradictory proof can be given, be called to the particular occasion on which the writing is supposed to have been made, and he may be asked if he did not make a writing of the purport of the one to be offered to contradict him, and if he denies making it, or does not admit its execution, it shall then be shown to him, and if he admits its genuineness, he shall be allowed to make his own explanation of it; but it shall be competent for the court at any time during the trial to require the production of the writing for its inspection, and the court may thereupon make such use of it for the purpose of the trial as it may think best. Code 1950, § 8-293; 1958, c. 380; 1960, c. 114; 1964, c. 356; 1977, c. 624. Va. Code § 19.2-268.2 - Recent complaint hearsay exception (Subdivision (23) of Supreme Court Rule 2:803 derived from this section). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any prosecution for criminal sexual assault under Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2, a violation of §§ 18.2-361 , 18.2-366 , 18.2-370 or § 18.2-370.1 , the fact that the person injured made complaint of the offense recently after commission of the offense is admissible, not as independent evidence of the offense, but for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the complaining witness. 1993, c. 592.