Opinion ID: 2230536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Testimony Concerning Defendant's Mental State

Text: Defendant's eighth contention is that testimony which characterized his mental state as guilt-ridden after the murder was an improper conclusion which prejudiced the jury. Dobrovolskis testified that the night before he and defendant were arrested, he (Dobrovolskis) returned home and found defendant lying on the floor, watching television with Dobrovolskis' family. Dobrovolskis testified that defendant was acting very strange; defendant did not say hello when Dobrovolskis walked in and he was very quiet. The following exchange occurred: Q. Do you know of any reason that Larry Eyler would act so strange or so guilt-ridden at this time? MR. SCHIPPERS [defense counsel]: Objection, your Honor, ask that Counsel's statement be stricken. I fail to see the relevancy of this line of questions. THE COURT: Objection overruled. MR. RAKOCZY [assistant State's Attorney]: Q. Do you know of any reason that he would be so despondent and guilt-stricken at this time, Mr. Debrovolkis [ sic ]? A. No. Defendant argues that the State's irrelevant questions resulted in inadmissible opinions and conclusions by the witness which prejudiced defendant by suggesting a guilty state of mind. We agree with the State that defendant's contention is waived. At trial, defendant objected only on relevancy grounds. It cannot be said that the questions are not relevant. Ignoring for the moment the question whether defendant was in fact guilt-ridden (which relates to defendant's prejudice argument), it was certainly relevant whether Dobrovolskis knew of any reason why defendant might be guilt-ridden. In this court, defendant contends the testimony constituted improper opinion testimony and that it was prejudicial. This court has consistently held that specific objections waive all grounds not specified. ( People v. O'Neal (1984), 104 Ill.2d 399, 407.) Defendant has waived the two grounds he raises for the first time in this court. Even in the absence of a waiver, defendant would not be entitled to a new trial. Viewing the record as a whole, we are convinced that the admission of the challenged testimony, assuming arguendo it was error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Taylor (1984), 101 Ill.2d 508, 517.