Opinion ID: 2185279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Barred Testimony

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court denied him due process and a fair trial when it refused to allow him to testify as to an alleged promise made to him by Assistant State's Attorney Alesia that, if he cooperated as a witness against Guadelupe Aguilar, he would not be charged with murder. Defendant claims that this promise induced him to sign the handwritten statement in which he confessed to participating in the robbery which led to the murders of Chang and Myung Choi. Several months prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement to police on the basis that it was involuntarily made. After a hearing, the court denied the motion. Defendant did not appeal from the trial court's ruling. At trial, defense counsel attempted on direct examination to elicit testimony from defendant regarding Alesia's alleged promise to him. The trial court refused to allow this line of questioning to proceed on the grounds that the matter of whether defendant's confession was voluntary was a matter properly litigated outside the presence of the jury, which had already been determined in the court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress. The admissibility of a confession that is challenged on the ground that it is involuntary is a matter for the trial court to determine out of the presence of the jury. People v. Gilliam, 172 Ill.2d 484, 218 Ill.Dec. 884, 670 N.E.2d 606 (1996). In the instant case, the court ruled as a matter of law that defendant's statement was voluntary. Thus, the trial court properly prevented this matter from being again litigated in the presence of the jury. Defendant, nevertheless, still has a right to present evidence to the jury regarding the credibility and weight to be given to the confession. Defendant claims the trial court improperly limited his right to present his contention that the circumstances surrounding his confession rendered it not credible. A review of the record, however, demonstrates that, contrary to defendant's claims, he was not prevented from testifying as to the statement's credibility. During his direct examination, defendant stated that, before he signed the handwritten statement, Assistant State's Attorney Alesia told him he would not be charged with murder, but that he would be charged with armed robbery. Defendant also read and showed to the jury the first line of his statement, which said the statement was taken regarding an armed robbery and fatal shooting, which defendant claimed supported his belief that he was not charged with murder. Defendant further testified on direct examination that he did not participate in the robbery and that, before making his statement to police, he told them the truth about what happened. Additionally, defendant stated that he had been awake since 4:30 a.m. when he signed the statement at 5:15 p.m., and that Alesia told him if he cooperated, he would not be charged with murder. Defendant further related that he did not realize he had been charged with murder until his arraignment the next day. Furthermore, on redirect examination, defendant again testified that he signed the handwritten statement only after he was told he would not be charged with murder. Given the extensive testimony by defendant as to the circumstances surrounding his confession to police, we find defendant's claim that the trial court improperly precluded him from testifying that prosecutors promised not to charge him with murder completely without merit.