Opinion ID: 3135545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d at 1165. The court reasoned:

Text: “[D]eferring decision on a pretrial motion to exclude evidence of a prior conviction is prejudicial to the defendant because it leaves the defendant ‘without a basis on which to decide whether [to] bring the prior conviction to the attention to the prospective jurors on voir dire.’ [Citation.]  ‘[W]here the defendant requests a ruling which will affect defense strategy from the very inception of the trial, and where there is no apparent reason to postpone the determination of the motion other than the desire to avoid a difficult issue,  the trial court should rule and the defendant should be entitled to rely on that ruling.’ [Citation.]” Ritchie, 144 Vt. at 123, 473 A.2d at 1165. Similarly, in McClure, the Oregon Supreme Court opined that trial courts should rule on the admissibility of prior crimes “as soon as possible after the issue is raised.” McClure, 298 Or. at 340, 692 P.2d at 583. The court recognized: “It is only after a ruling on the admissibility of a conviction that the prosecutor and defense counsel can make an informed decision how to effectively try the case. The decision has a -7- significant impact on what questions to ask the jurors during voir dire, what to say in opening statements and the questioning of witnesses. Whether the defendant takes the stand changes the entire complexion of the case.” McClure, 298 Or. at 340, 692 P.2d at 583. The court concluded: “[i]t is not realistic or necessary for a defendant to have to wait until he is on the stand to find out whether he will be impeached with prior crime evidence.” McClure, 298 Or. at 341, 692 P.2d at 583. Under certain circumstances, the court recognized, the trial court may defer ruling until the defendant testifies, but this should be the rare occasion. McClure, 298 Or. at 341, 692 P.2d at 583. We agree with the comments of our appellate court and the courts of our sister states recognizing defendants’ need for an early ruling and acknowledging that, in most cases, the trial judge will possess the information necessary to conduct a Montgomery hearing before trial. We conclude that a trial court’s failure to rule on a motion in limine on the admissibility of prior convictions when it has sufficient information to make a ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion. When applying the Montgomery rule before trial, a trial judge will certainly be able to determine whether the prior crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or involved dishonesty or false statements. Likewise, a trial judge can readily ascertain whether less than 10 years has elapsed since the date of conviction of the prior crime or release of the witness from confinement. Moreover, in all but the most complicated cases, a judge will have enough information before trial to weigh the probative value of admitting the prior conviction against the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. See Settles, 584 So. 2d at 1263-65; Ballard, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 544-45; Phillips, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 952.We acknowledge there may be some rare cases when a trial court cannot effectively conduct a Montgomery balancing test without hearing the defendant’s testimony. But, those rare cases should be the exception, and not the rule. Thus, in those rare cases, we admonish trial judges that it is essential for appellate review that a sufficient basis be articulated to support a delay in ruling on a motion in limine on the admissibility of prior convictions. See People v. Rivera, 221 Ill. 2d 481, 508 (2006) (“without an adequate record, consisting of all relevant facts, factual -8- findings, and articulated legal bases , the trial court’s rulings may be virtually immune from appellate review”). We now examine whether there was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in either of these cases, as well as other issues raised by the parties. A. Robert Patrick
In the case of People v. Patrick, the trial judge summarily refused to consider the admissibility of any of Patrick’s prior convictions. The trial judge offered absolutely no justification for delaying his ruling on Patrick’s motion in limine, stating only that his procedure in every case, without exception, was not to give advisory opinions. Here, Patrick merely sought a determination of whether the law as applied to the facts of his case would permit the use of any or all of his prior convictions for impeachment. Patrick was at least entitled to have the trial judge base his decision to defer a determination on the specific facts of his case, and to determine, before the defendant testified if possible, whether any of the convictions would be excluded as a matter of law. In Patrick’s case, the trial judge’s blanket refusal in every criminal case to rule on any motions in limine seeking to bar introduction of prior convictions until after the defendants testified was arbitrary and without reason. When a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary, we will not hesitate to find an abuse of discretion. See Hall, 195 Ill. 2d at 20. In effect, the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to exercise any specific discretion. There is no justification for a trial judge’s blanket policy to withhold ruling on all motions in limine on the admissibility of prior convictions until after a defendant’s testimony. Here, the trial court’s refusal to rule was not based on any specific facts. We hold, accordingly, that the court’s application of a blanket policy of refusing to rule on all motions in limine on the admissibility of prior convictions until after a defendant’s testimony amounted to an abuse of discretion. The State argues that even if the trial court abused its discretion in deferring its decision on the motion in limine, Patrick was not prejudiced by the error. In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, -9- 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 710-11, 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 (1967), the Supreme Court determined that when the error is of a constitutional magnitude, a defendant is entitled to a new trial if the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot say that the trial court’s error in Patrick’s case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, Patrick was unjustifiably required to make a tactical decision without the ability to evaluate the impact it would have on his defense. Patrick’s counsel was unable to inform the jury whether Patrick would testify and was anticipatorily unable to disclose Patrick’s prior convictions to lessen the prejudicial effect the convictions would have on his credibility. As a result, Patrick was substantially prejudiced. Patrick’s decision whether to testify was critical because he relied on a theory of self-defense. While his testimony was not absolutely necessary because other testimony corroborated his theory of selfdefense, knowing whether his prior convictions were going to be used for impeachment was a vital factor that needed to be weighed. If Patrick had known before testifying that his prior convictions were going to be admitted, he may have decided not to testify, or at least he could have informed the jury earlier of the prior convictions to lessen the negative impact. The impact of the convictions on Patrick’s credibility is clear from the State’s focused and repeated argument urging the jury not to believe a three-time convicted felon. The jury’s verdict of guilty of second degree murder indicates that, to some degree, the jury believed Patrick was justified in his use of force. Applying the Chapman standard, we have no doubt that the error in this case was not harmless to Patrick. Accordingly, we believe a new trial is warranted, and we reverse the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts and remand the cause to the trial court. We note that Patrick has not argued the evidence in this case was insufficient to convict him. Thus, there is no double jeopardy impediment to a new trial. People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 134 (2007).
-10- Patrick also contends that the jury was erroneously given Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, Nos. 7.06X and No. 26.01I (4th ed. 2000), the instructions used for first degree murder, second degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. These instructions preclude the jury from considering involuntary manslaughter unless it acquits the defendant of first degree murder. Patrick argues that the jury should have considered first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time. The State counters that: (1) Patrick failed to preserve any objection to the instructions; and (2) the jury instructions given were proper. Patrick admits that he failed to preserve this issue, but asks this court to review the issue under the plain error doctrine. This court has recognized that “a defendant forfeits review of any putative jury instruction error if the defendant does not object to the instruction or offer an alternative instruction at trial and does not raise the instruction issue in a posttrial motion.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 175 (2005). Here, Patrick forfeited the issue by failing to object to the instructions and failing to raise his claim of error in a posttrial motion. Moreover, Patrick waived any objection to the jury instructions by proffering the allegedly erroneous instructions to the trial court. Patrick cannot now complain that the instruction he tendered was in error. See People v. Parker, 223 Ill. 2d 494, 508 (2006) (a defendant may not directly attack a jury instruction tendered by the defense). We decline to address Patrick’s plain-error claim because Patrick invited any error by submitting the jury instruction. See People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309, 319 (2003) (“Under the doctrine of invited error, an accused may not request to proceed in one manner and then later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error. [Citations.]”). Accordingly, we conclude that Patrick failed to preserve his claim of error in the jury instructions.