Opinion ID: 3134400
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-Examination of James Linsley

Text: Defendant initially contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine State witness James Linsley by the circuit court's refusal to allow him to elicit the nature or the severity of the criminal charge pending against Linsley in the State of Washington. Defendant alternatively argues that, to the extent that his defense counsel acquiesced in the circuit court's ruling, defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record discloses that, before trial, the State filed a motion in limine to bar defendant from cross-examining Linsley about the felony charge pending against Linsley in Washington. The charge was for rape of a child in the first degree. The State asserted that the pending charge could not be properly used for impeachment because there had been no conviction. The State argued further that, since there was no evidence that Linsley had been offered anything or had any expectation of leniency regarding the charge as a result of his testimony in this case, the State's case would be unduly prejudiced by allowing defendant to inquire into the matter. Defense counsel countered that defendant had the right to cross-examine Linsley about whether he was testifying against defendant with an expectation of leniency regarding the pending charge. Defense counsel added: “I don't even care [if] we necessarily explain to the jury exactly what the charge is. If there is prejudice attached to that,  I am willing to work with the court and the State in terms of how the question is phrased.” The circuit court granted the State's motion in part. The court first ruled that the pending charge was not proper for general impeachment purposes because there was no conviction. The court then explained that another aspect of impeachment remained to be considered: i.e. , whether defendant was entitled to use the pending charge to impeach Linsley by showing that he had a motive to testify falsely. The circuit court ruled that defendant must be permitted to cross-examine Linsley about any expectation of leniency that he had regarding the pending charge. The court, however, forbade defendant from mentioning the name or nature of the pending charge, other than stating that it was a “felony.” In accordance with the circuit court's ruling, defense counsel limited his cross-examination of Linsley to whether Linsley expected any lenient treatment on his pending “felony” charge in Washington in exchange for his testimony in this case. Linsley denied having any expectation of leniency. Defendant now contends that the circuit court's ruling precluding him from mentioning the name or nature of the Washington charge pending against Linsley, other than stating that it was a “felony,” deprived him of his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine Linsley. Defendant asserts that this ruling prevented him from adequately informing the jury of the extent of Linsley's motivation to offer false testimony, because defendant was not allowed to elicit the nature or the severity of the charge Linsley faced. According to defendant, Linsley was the State's key witness, and the jury likely would have acquitted defendant had they disbelieved Linsley's testimony. A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him and this includes the right to conduct a reasonable cross-examination. See Olden v. Kentucky , 488 U.S. 227, 231, 102 L. Ed. 2d 513, 519, 109 S. Ct. 480, 482-83 (1988); People v. Triplett , 108 Ill. 2d 463, 474 (1985). Accordingly, a defendant has the right to inquire into a witness' bias, interest or motive to testify falsely. See Davis v. Alaska , 415 U.S. 308, 316, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 354, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1110 (1974); Triplett , 108 Ill. 2d at 475. Evidence that a witness has been arrested or charged with a crime is a proper subject for cross-examination where it would reasonably tend to show that the witness' testimony might be influenced by bias, interest or motive to testify falsely. See Triplett , 108 Ill. 2d at 475. A defendant need not show that a promise of leniency has in fact been made to the witness, or that an expectation of special favor exists in the mind of the witness; rather, the evidence used need only give rise to the inference that the witness has something to gain or lose by testifying. See Triplett , 108 Ill. 2d at 475-76. A circuit court “has no discretion to deny a defendant this right, but only to preclude repetitive or unduly harassing interrogation.” People v. Ramey , 152 Ill. 2d 41, 67 (1992). The improper denial of a defendant's constitutional right to cross-examination does not always mandate reversal, but may be found to be harmless error. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 684, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674, 686, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1438 (1986); People v. Johnson , 116 Ill. 2d 13, 28-29 (1987); see also Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967). “The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.” Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. at 684, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 686-87, 106 S. Ct. at 1438. See People v. Young , 128 Ill. 2d 1, 43-44 (1989). In the present case, we conclude that, even if the circuit court improperly restricted defendant's cross-examination of Linsley, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming even when considered apart from Linsley's testimony, and the restriction imposed on defendant's cross-examination of Linsley was not significant. Evidence other than Linsley's testimony showed the following. Defendant and Linsley were seen leaving Graf's tavern with the victim Laurie Gwinn at about 1:30 a.m. on August 21, 1995. Gwinn did not report to work later that same morning. Gwinn's car never left Graf's parking lot and was later recovered therefrom. At about 2 a.m. that day, Crecinda Harris, who lived across the street from Junior Hanson's house where defendant was staying, heard a woman loudly cry out in a pleading voice, “No, not that. Oh, no, not that.” She described the voice as coming from defendant's tent in Hanson's yard. Harris was so frightened as a result that she crawled back into her home. Around 6:30 a.m. that day, defendant was observed as he quickly packed his tent into his car. Defendant and Linsley then left Hanson's house and never returned. Defendant did not stay through the Labor Day weekend, although he had earlier informed Hanson that he would. Nor did defendant go camping at a nearby campsite, despite telling Hanson of his plan to do so. Further, at approximately 7:05 a.m., Kevin Curran witnessed defendant's car leave the Hennepin Canal area at a high rate of speed. Suspicious, Curran followed the car and wrote down its license plate number, MMJ 296. This license plate number matched the plates on defendant's car. Curran identified defendant as the driver of the car and Linsley as the passenger. The pair then fled the Kewanee area. The next day, Gwinn's body was recovered from the Hennepin Canal. The jewelry that Gwinn always wore was missing. An autopsy revealed that she had been raped and murdered. In addition, before Gwinn disappeared, defendant told Alice Hanson that he and Linsley had gone swimming in that canal, which was evidence of his familiarity with the canal. Finally, William Joe Tennison, one of defendant's cellmates, testified that defendant made several incriminating statements to him. DNA experts testified regarding seminal material taken from Gwinn's vagina during the autopsy and the tests performed thereon. As a result of those tests, Linsley was excluded as the donor of that seminal material. Defendant, however, could not be excluded as the source. All the foregoing facts, when considered together, provide overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. Thus, the evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, even when considered without Linsley's eyewitness testimony to the crimes. We note, furthermore, that defendant was permitted a full cross-examination of Linsley in all other respects. The jury was advised of a wealth of information with which to make an informed decision about Linsley's motivation for offering false testimony. The jurors were informed that Linsley was in custody because he, like defendant, was charged with Gwinn's murder. The jurors were also informed that the Henry County State's Attorney had offered to Linsley to recommend a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment if Linsley pled guilty to the murder and testified against defendant. Linsley rejected that offer. Finally, the jurors were informed that Linsley was arrested in Kansas and that he had a felony charge pending against him in Washington. Regarding the Washington charge, defendant cross-examined Linsley about whether he had any expectation of leniency, which Linsley denied. The one restriction placed on defendant's cross- examination of Linsley by the circuit court was minor in the context of this case. Indeed, upon our review of the entire record, we are certain that defendant would have been adjudged guilty of the same crimes had the circuit court permitted him to mention the name or nature of the charge pending against Linsley in Washington. We therefore conclude that any error in this regard was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Given our resolution of this issue, we need not address defendant's alternative argument that his counsel was ineffective for acquiescing in the limitation placed on his cross-examination of Linsley.