Opinion ID: 2015103
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Limiting Evidence Regarding Confession

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court erroneously limited the evidence that he could present to the jury on the circumstances surrounding the confession. In an offer of proof, Dr. Michael Althoff, an examining psychologist, opined that defendant's desire to protect his family made him especially susceptible to police pressures and created a form of psychological compulsion to confess. Thus, according to Dr. Althoff, defendant's confession was the product of psychological coercion. The trial court granted the State's motion in limine to limit Dr. Althoff's testimony. The court ruled that Dr. Althoff could testify on defendant's mental state or condition, but could not testify on the circumstances surrounding the voluntariness or competency of defendant's confession. It is settled that the admissibility of a confession that is challenged on the ground that it is involuntary is a matter for the trial court to determine in the first instance out of the presence of the jury. If the court rules that the confession is voluntary and admissible in evidence, the defendant still has the right to present evidence to the jury that affects the credibility or weight to be given the confession. People v. Cook, 33 Ill.2d 363, 369-70, 211 N.E.2d 374 (1965); People v. Wagoner, 8 Ill.2d 188, 197, 133 N.E.2d 24 (1956); accord Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986). However, this right of defendant does not diminish the general rule that the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be reversed absent abuse of that discretion. People v. Ward, 101 Ill.2d 443, 455-56, 79 Ill.Dec. 142, 463 N.E.2d 696 (1984); accord Crane, 476 U.S. at 689-90, 106 S.Ct. at 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d at 644-45. Generally, expert testimony is admissible when the expert testifies to matters that are beyond the common knowledge of ordinary citizens, and where such testimony will aid the fact finder in reaching its conclusion. People v. Jordan, 103 Ill.2d 192, 208, 82 Ill.Dec. 925, 469 N.E.2d 569 (1984); People v. Free, 94 Ill.2d 378, 411, 69 Ill.Dec. 1, 447 N.E.2d 218 (1983). Conversely, expert testimony is not admissible on matters of common knowledge unless the subject is difficult to understand and explain. Hernandez v. Power Construction Co., 73 Ill.2d 90, 98-99, 22 Ill.Dec. 503, 382 N.E.2d 1201 (1978). In the present case, we conclude that the trial court properly limited the testimony of Dr. Althoff. Whether defendant falsely confessed to protect his family is not a concept beyond the understanding of ordinary citizens, and is not difficult to understand or explain. See People v. Slago, 58 Ill.App.3d 1009, 1015-16, 16 Ill.Dec. 392, 374 N.E.2d 1270 (1978); accord People v. Lambrecht, 231 Ill.App.3d 426, 438-39, 172 Ill.Dec. 688, 595 N.E.2d 1358 (1992); People v. Elder, 219 Ill.App.3d 223, 225-27, 161 Ill.Dec. 872, 579 N.E.2d 420 (1991). Further, we note that defendant was not precluded from challenging the credibility of his confession. The jury could have reached the same conclusion as Dr. Althoff based on the facts imparted through the testimony of other witnesses. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the testimony of Dr. Althoff.