Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 23 (2026)

Impeachment of party's own witness

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 23. The party who produces a witness shall not impeach his credit by evidence of bad character, but may contradict him by other evidence, and may also prove that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony; but before proof of such inconsistent statements is given, the circumstances thereof sufficient to designate the particular occasion shall be mentioned to the witness, and he shall be asked if he has made such statements, and, if so, shall be allowed to explain them.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1925–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. McAfee, 722 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. McAfee, 722 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 1999). · cites it 5× “The defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the judge’s exclusion of Pomales’s testimony was prejudicial error as to him, because it deprived him of probative exculpatory evidence.”

Commonwealth v. Scott, 564 N.E.2d 370 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 4× “[13] The defendant argues that the purported pretrial identification should not be admissible to impeach a witness who denies having identified the defendant in a pretrial identification procedure as the person whom the witness saw commit, not the actual crime, *824 but a…”

Fishman v. Brooks, 487 N.E.2d 1377 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 2× “Fishman contends that certain statements admitted as prior inconsistent statements did not satisfy the requirements of G. L. c. 233, § 23 (1984 ed.). Brooks called Fishman to testify as part of his case in chief.”

Commonwealth v. Perez, 954 N.E.2d 1 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 233, § 23. Pursuant to G. L. c. 233, § 23, a party who produces a witness may prove that the witness has made prior inconsistent statements, “but before proof of such inconsistent statements is given, the circumstances thereof sufficient to designate the particular…”

Commonwealth v. Cobb, 405 N.E.2d 97 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 3× “The defendants offer three reasons why Leddy’s prior inconsistent statements were not admissible under G. L. c. 233, § 23, which provides: “[T]he party who produces a witness shall not impeach his credit by evidence of bad character, but may contradict him by other evidence, and…”

Commonwealth v. Cadwell, 372 N.E.2d 246 (Mass. 1978). · cites it 2× “) The interrogation should not be regarded as an impeachment of the prosecution's own witness prohibited by G.L.c. 233, § 23 [3] (see Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Festa, 341 N.E.2d 276 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “He testified that on the night in question he had received a telephone call from the defendant sometime after 2 a.”

Commonwealth v. Asenjo, 477 Mass. 599 (Mass. 2017). · cites it 2× “See G. L. c. 233, § 23. This evidence was particularly prejudicial to the defendant in light of the improperly substituted first complaint witness’s testimony, which was the only evidence corroborating the defendant’s participation in the rape.”

Commonwealth v. Champagne, 503 N.E.2d 7 (Mass. 1987). · cites it 2× “He concluded that the prosecution had satisfied the procedural requirements of G. L. c. 233, § 23 (1984 ed.), so as to warrant impeachment of its own witness.”

Stephens v. Hall, 294 F.3d 210 (1st Cir. 2002). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 23 (forbidding impeachment of party’s own witness with evidence of bad character); Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Morgan, 868 N.E.2d 99 (Mass. 2007). “111, 114-115 (1992) (pursuant to G. L. c. 233, § 23, party cannot call witness he knows will offer nothing relevant solely to impeach witness with otherwise inadmissible evidence).”

Commonwealth v. Lowe, 461 N.E.2d 192 (Mass. 1984). “See G. L. c. 233, § 23. Wasik’s testimony that she asked Graziano whether the defendant was a pimp, by the nature of its form as a question, was not offered to prove the truth of any matter.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.