This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-09-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have ruled that testimonial evidence commands greater weight than sworn statements because testimonies given during trial are more exact and elaborate.[36] Sworn statements are often executed when an affiant's mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.[37] Rhoda's credibility was tested on the witness stand. Under rigorous cross-examination, Rhoda never wavered in her assertion that appellant raped her on 26 March 1997 and 28 March 1997. On the other hand, statements made during preliminary investigations will not always disclose all the facts of the occurrence narrated. Preliminary investigations are commonly summary or truncated in nature. They are designed simply for the determination of probable cause prior to the filing of an information in court.[38] | |||||