We hold that on redirect examination it was proper for Haynes to explain why he had previously made a statement contradicting his present testimony. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 159.03(1) (1991), citing Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282 (1972) and Hairrell v. State, 16 Ala. App. 110, 75 So. 702 (1917). "The extent to which the impeached witness may go into the reasons why he made the prior inconsistent statement is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court."
BLOODWORTH, Justice. Petition of the State by its Attorney General for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Johnson v. State, 49 Ala.App. ___, 272 So.2d 282. Writ denied.
A prior inconsistent statement may be explained by a witness. Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282 (1972). The victim explained that she made this statement because she was "scared."
In so ruling, the court fell into error, we think. We held that prejudicial error was committed in a strikingly similar situation in Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282, cert. denied 289 Ala. 745, 272 So.2d 286, in which it was stated: "In our opinion the court erred in not allowing the appellant to answer the question propounded above.
Cross-examination of an accused's character witnesses may include inquiries concerning specific acts of the accused for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness. Mullins v. State, 31 Ala. App. 571, 19 So.2d 849; Echols v. State, 256 Ala. 387, 55 So.2d 530; Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282; Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472, 78 So. 378. The trial court has discretion to decide, in the context of the matter at issue whether the trait or reputation evidenced by the act assumed in the question was relevant to that raised by the defense and tended to impeach the credibility of the witness. Bodine v. State, 18 Ala. App. 514, 93 So.2d 264; Houston v. State, 50 Ala. App. 536, 280 So.2d 797; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385. No prejudicial error can result to a defendant from a question put by the State when the defense's objections are upheld or when no harmful answer is actually elicited from the witness.