State v. Hamilton

Summary

The court reversed the defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted two recorded police interviews as prior inconsistent statements without an adequate foundation showing that the witness’s trial testimony was inconsistent or that he refused to testify. The court held that adopted statements may qualify as prior inconsistent statements when the witness’s adoption is unequivocal, positive, and definite, but the trial court must determine admissibility rather than delegate that question to the jury. The court upheld admission of the defendant’s social-media photographs and video because they were probative of identity and not unfairly prejudicial.