Opinion ID: 365441
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevance of an Unrelated Payment by a Third-Party

Text: 67 Frederick Ingram also contends that the joinder caused the exclusion of evidence that an attorney who represented Ingram Corporation before the Illinois Commerce Commission made a $5,000 contribution to McPartlin's reelection campaign fund, and that the payment was motivated in part by McPartlin's having recommended the attorney's firm to Ingram Corporation. There was no showing that the attorney was coerced. This evidence, offered first by the prosecution and then by the Ingrams, was rightly excluded on both occasions as irrelevant. In rejecting the Ingram offer the court said that it could be prejudicial to McPartlin without being probative of any issue as far as the Ingrams are concerned. Prejudice to McPartlin aside, the trial court was correct as to the probative value of the evidence. 68 We therefore conclude that the denial of the motions for severance was not error.