Opinion ID: 2252960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Impeachment of Erma Rodriguez

Text: At trial, Erma Rodriguez, defendant's cousin, was called to testify as a witness for the State. The State impeached her testimony by examining her regarding certain prior inconsistent statements. The State also presented Ramon Mares, defendant's uncle, and Detective Warren Wilkosz, who related Rodriguez's prior inconsistent statements. Defendant argues on appeal that admission of this impeachment evidence was in error, the State compounded the error by making substantive use of the evidence in closing argument, and the compounded error was not harmless or cured by jury instruction. In its opening statement at trial, the State asserted that Erma Rodriguez saw defendant and another person in a car near her home on Easter 1983, and that several weeks before that date, defendant came to her home early one morning, crying, agitated and emotional and asked her to mail a letter to his mother. The State asserts on appeal that it expected Rodriguez to testify, confirming the mail-request incident, and that defendant had said he was in trouble at the time, and also to testify that Dugan was the person with defendant on the particular Easter Sunday. The record reflects and the State does not deny, however, that Rodriguez told prosecutors prior to trial that she had never witnessed defendant and Dugan together. When called, Rodriguez testified that she saw defendant on the two occasions: Easter Sunday 1983, when defendant was at her home in a parked car with an unknown male individual and argued with her father, and about one week before that incident when defendant came to her home early one morning, asking her to mail a letter to his mother. Rodriguez did not recall telling Wilkosz that the mail-request incident occurred several weeks before Easter. She also testified that defendant said nothing at the time besides requesting that she mail a letter to his mother. The prosecutor then impeached Rodriguez by introducing, in the form of a series of questions, her allegedly prior inconsistent statements made to Wilkosz and Mares. Rodriguez denied telling Wilkosz that, during defendant's early morning visit to her home, defendant was crying and very upset or said he was in trouble, or that Dugan was with defendant on Easter Sunday. Rodriguez similarly denied telling Mares that Dugan was the man in the car with defendant on Easter, or that Dugan and defendant were friends and hung around together. Rodriguez's additional affirmative testimony, brought out under defense questioning, was essentially that Dugan had moved within a few houses of where she resided sometime around the beginning of July 1984, she had seen Dugan a few times in his yard, she did not talk to Dugan, she never saw defendant and Dugan together, she told Wilkosz and the prosecutors that she knew Dugan, and she previously told prosecutors that she had never seen defendant and Dugan together and she had seen defendant with a male Caucasian on Easter Sunday. The State continued to impeach Rodriguez through the testimony of Mares and Wilkosz. Under direct examination, Mares testified that Rodriguez had previously related to him that Dugan was the passenger in defendant's car on Easter 1983, and that Dugan and defendant used to hang around the neighborhood together at a younger age. Wilkosz testified also that Rodriguez told him that Dugan was in the car with defendant on Easter, and that several weeks before Easter defendant visited her, crying and upset, and saying he was in trouble. During closing argument, the prosecutor stated several times, consistent with the impeachment testimony, that the mail-request incident occurred in late February 1983 (which was around the time of the crime). For example: When you weigh Erma Rodriguez' testimony, and the testimony that she told you in the courtroom and whether she told you the whole truth about what happened in late February, Saturday morning, 3:00 a.m., consider the testimony of Warren Wilkosz, Detective Wilkosz. The testimony that he told you in court, in which he said that when he interviewed Erma Rodriguez she told him       When you consider whether Erma Rodriguez told you the truth, consider what Detective Wilkosz said. Erma Rodriguez told Detective Wilkosz that Ronnie Cruz, her cousin, came to her home on Saturday morning in late February at 3:00 a.m. He was crying, he was upset, and he told her, I am in trouble. Mail a letter to my mother. The State's rebuttal included the following: [Prosecutor]: Remember what Irma Rodriguez said about the incident at 2:00 or 3:00 o'clock Saturday morning, sometime before Easter, 1983, which puts it right in the time frame of February 25, 1983. That Cruz came in, and again this streetwise, tough kid was crying and aggitated [ sic ], and said according to       [Defense Counsel]: That's offered as substantive evidence, it is improper. Move to strike. [The Court]: Only use the evidence which was received. [Prosecutor]: I am, Judge. Who was impeaching her inability to remember what was said, when Warren Wilkosz said that Cruz was crying and he said he was in trouble and wanted her to mail a letter, an act which anybody can do by walking to a box and dropping it in. I submit that's very strange conduct at 2:00 a.m., approximately the time of the Nicarico homicide.       Now she testified that she couldn't see the passenger in that car. But please recall that Warren Wilkosz had talked to her just weeks before, and that she told Warren Wilkosz [Defense Counsel]: Objection. [The Court]: Same ruling. [Prosecutor]: This is impeachment. She told Warren Wilkosz that the white boy in the car with Rolando Cruz on Easter, 1983, was Brian Dugan. Our Rule 238 (134 Ill.2d R. 238) governs impeachment of witnesses and examination of hostile witnesses in criminal cases. (See 134 Ill.2d R. 433.) Under Rule 238(a), the credibility of a witness can be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. Such an attack may be accomplished by impeaching the witness with evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. (See People v. Morgan (1963), 28 Ill.2d 55, 63, 190 N.E.2d 755.) The admission of this evidence is premised on the fact that excluding it would deprive the examining party of the opportunity to exhibit the truth and leave him prey to a hostile witness. A counter concern, however, is that such extrajudicial statements are often highly incriminating and are usually made outside the presence of the defendant. ( People v. Collins (1971), 49 Ill.2d 179, 194, 274 N.E.2d 77.) What a witness states out of court and out of the presence of the defendant is pure hearsay and incompetent as substantive evidence. (See People v. Bailey, (1975), 60 Ill.2d 37, 43, 322 N.E.2d 804, citing People v. McKee (1968), 39 Ill.2d 265, 270, 235 N.E.2d 625; People v. Bradford, (1985), 106 Ill.2d 492, 499, 88 Ill.Dec. 615, 478 N.E.2d 1341; but see Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 38, par. 115-10.1 (permitting substantive admissibility in criminal cases as to certain kinds of prior inconsistent statements).) Consequently, it must be borne in mind that the purpose of such impeachment evidence is to destroy the credibility of the witness and not to establish the truth of the impeaching material. (See Bradford, 106 Ill.2d at 499, 88 Ill.Dec. 615, 478 N.E.2d 1341; Bailey, 60 Ill.2d at 43, 322 N.E.2d 804.) Prior inconsistent statements, with the exception of those admissible under section 115-10.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, are not to be treated as having any substantive or independent testimonial value. Recognizing the danger that prior inconsistent statements could be improperly introduced under the guise of impeachment, this court stated in People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill.2d 545, 563, 65 Ill.Dec. 944, 442 N.E.2d 255: A court's witness, or any witness for that matter, cannot be impeached by prior inconsistent statements unless his testimony has damaged, rather than failed to support the position of the impeaching party. The reason for this is simple: No possible reason exists to impeach a witness who has not contradicted any of the impeaching party's evidence, except to bring inadmissible hearsay to the attention of the jury. Impeachment is supposed to cancel out the witness' testimony. It is only when the witness' testimony is more damaging than his complete failure to testify would have been that impeachment is useful. (Emphasis added.) (Accord People v. King (1986), 109 Ill.2d 514, 528, 94 Ill.Dec. 702, 488 N.E.2d 949.) Weaver found error in the impeachment of a witness because his testimony had not damaged the State's case, and the State's improper motivation to substantively use the impeaching evidence was apparent on the face of the record. The State's improper motivation was revealed by the fact that the impeachment negated evidence which, although disappointing, was favorable to the State and resulted in the State's being left with no evidence other than the improperly used impeachment evidence to support one of its key propositions. The error was then compounded by the State's treatment of the impeachment evidence as though it were substantive evidence in the closing argument. Damage as referred to in Weaver does not occur where a party interrogates a witness about a fact which would be favorable to the examiner if true, but then receives a reply which is merely negative in its effect on the examiner's case. (See People v. Chitwood (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 1017, 1024, 344 N.E.2d 611; 1 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 37 (4th ed. 1992).) Such testimony is merely disappointing and not damaging since the examiner's case is no worse off than if the witness had not testified. Affirmative damage results only from testimony that gives positive aid to an adversary's case. Graham, Prior Inconsistent Statements Impeachment and Substantive Admissibility: An Analysis of the Effect of Adopting the Proposed Illinois Rules of Evidence, 1978 U.Ill.L.F. 329, 372; see M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 607.4, at 349 (5th ed. 1990). The State contends, however, that Weaver is factually distinguishable, in significant respect, from the present case. According to the State, in this case, unlike Weaver, there exists evidence (Robert Turner's testimony) besides the impeachment evidence to support the State's proposition of a Cruz-Dugan personal relationship. Thus, [t]he problem of Weaver, the substantive use of impeachment because there has been no other way to prove a proposition, did not exist here on the part of the People. We fail to grasp the significance of the dissimilarity relied on by the State. In Weaver, this court referred to the absence of substantive evidence in support of the State's proposition, resulting from the State's impeachment of favorable testimony. These circumstances revealed that the impeachment was improperly motivated. In the present case, we cannot conclude to the converse, i.e., that the impeachment was properly motivated, merely because the State had other available means to prove the Cruz-Dugan personal relationship. The fact that the State had other evidence to prove this proposition is significant only to the extent that no basis was thereby offered to infer improper motive on the part of the State. Improper motive can be and was, however, shown by other circumstances. The test for determining whether impeachment is permissible depends on objectively identifiable facts from which the examiner's state of mind can be inferred. That the Weaver court could discern improper motive from the illogic of the impeachment there as well as from the absence of damage to the impeaching party's case does not mean that Weaver is not controlling here. And finally, that the State could rely on Robert Turner's testimony in its attempt to establish the Cruz-Dugan relationship in no sense shows that its impeachment of Rodriguez was properly motivated and permissible. Weaver does, however, concern impeachment of a witness under the form of Rule 238 existing when these crimes were committed. Nonetheless, subsequent amendment of the rule did not change the principle that a witness' prior inconsistent statement could only be introduced to impeach the witness. (See Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 110A, par. 238, Historical & Practice Notes, at 522 (Smith-Hurd 1985).) Accordingly, the affirmative damage requirement remained viable. See Bradford, 106 Ill.2d at 500, 88 Ill.Dec. 615, 478 N.E.2d 1341 ([a] court's witness may be impeached by a prior inconsistent statement when the witness' testimony damages the position of the impeaching party); M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 607.4, at 353 (5th ed. 1990). We agree with defendant that the enactment of section 115-10.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, subsequent to these crimes, supports a rigorous enforcement of the damage requirement under Rule 238(a). (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, par. 115-10.1(c)(2).) Now that a party can admit into evidence a turncoat witness' prior inconsistent statement by complying with section 115-10.1, the introduction of oral inconsistent statements under the guise of impeachment should be foreclosed. See M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 607.4, at 354-55 (5th ed. 1990); Steigmann, Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence in Illinois, 72 Ill.B.J. 638, 642-43 (1984). The State, nonetheless, relies on People v. Steptore (1972), 51 Ill.2d 208, 281 N.E.2d 642, to support the view that Rodriguez could be impeached by the use of extrinsic evidence in the form of Mares' and Wilkosz's testimony. Steptore, however, concerned an additional foundational requirement that impeachment, by extrinsic evidence, be with regard to noncollateral matters. There is no question in the present case concerning collateralness. Based on our review of the record, Rodriguez's testimony did not damage the State's case. Rodriguez's affirmative testimony was entirely neutral. Rodriguez's testimony that she had not observed defendant and Dugan together was similarly neutral. This evidence neither contradicted any evidence presented by the State nor provided positive aid to defendant's body of evidence. As a result, while the State may have been disappointed that Rodriguez did not testify in accordance with what was expected of her, the prosecution's case was no worse off than had Rodriguez not taken the stand at all. Indeed, Rodriguez's testimony that Dugan once resided near her home and that he had given her family a dog was, as in Weaver, favorable, albeit disappointing, to the State. In sum, Rodriguez did not testify to anything of an adversely affirmative nature which could have justified the impeachment of her credibility. We perceive no possible reason for the impeachment of Rodriguez except to attempt to bring inadmissible hearsay to the attention of the jury. Impeachment is intended as a means to cancel out damaging testimony. There was simply no damaging testimony here to cancel. Considering the generally neutral quality of Rodriguez's testimony and the obvious value of her prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence, we cannot but conclude that the motivation for introducing her prior inconsistent statements was improper. The State claims that Rodriguez's turnabout and retraction damaged its case in the eyes of the jury because it belied the State's opening statement as to the evidence which would be presented. The State cites several authorities ( State v. Ortlepp (Minn. 1985), 363 N.W.2d 39; Gordon v. United States (D.C.1983), 466 A.2d 1226; State v. Governor (La.1976), 331 So.2d 443) which supposedly support the view that a discrepancy between testimony and opening statement is important in assessing the propriety of impeachment. Reliance on these authorities for this proposition, however, requires a significant stretch of the imagination. We remain convinced that impeachment is designed to challenge the credibility of a witness and is not a means of rehabilitating counsel's arguments to the jury. Furthermore, even assuming that Rodriguez's impeachment was permissible to rehabilitate the State's opening statement, the State in opening never represented that a Cruz-Dugan relationship would be established. Thus, even under the State's theory, there would have been no justification for introducing any impeachment evidence pertaining to a critical Cruz-Dugan link. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing impeachment of Rodriguez under the circumstances presented here. Rodriguez's testimony did not damage the State's case in the eyes of the jury. Rodriguez's prior inconsistent statements were therefore not admissible for any purpose and admission under these circumstances was impermissible. It is well recognized that jurors may find it difficult to consider prior inconsistent statements solely to determine credibility and may afford such testimony substantive value. (See Bailey, 60 Ill.2d at 43, 322 N.E.2d 804, citing People v. Paradise (1964), 30 Ill.2d 381, 384, 196 N.E.2d 689.) Consequently, `[t]his court has repeatedly disapproved prosecutorial efforts to impart substantive character to prior inconsistent statements under the guise of impeachment.' Bradford, 106 Ill.2d at 499, 88 Ill.Dec. 615, 478 N.E.2d 1341, quoting People v. Bryant (1983), 94 Ill.2d 514, 522, 69 Ill.Dec. 84, 447 N.E.2d 301. The State contends that it did not seek to use the impeachment testimony of Mares and Wilkosz as substantive evidence during closing argument. The prosecutor merely asked the jury to properly weigh Rodriguez's testimony against the impeachment testimony of Wilkosz to decide Rodriguez's credibility. The logical question which arises from this argument, however, is, Her credibility as to what? Surely, the jury was not expected to decide Rodriguez's credibility as to whether defendant came to her home on Easter 1983 with an unidentifiable person and also a week earlier to ask that a letter be mailed. It may be that the State did indeed wish to attack Rodriguez's credibility, but it was her credibility as to whether she observed Dugan with defendant on Easter Sunday. Such an attack accepts the prior inconsistent statements for the truth of the matter asserted. The State's contention is, accordingly, meritless. The record shows that the prosecutor repeatedly referred the jury to the substance of Rodriguez's alleged statements to Wilkosz. The prosecutor also requested the jury to consider whether Rodriguez or Wilkosz was telling the truth. Additionally, the prosecutor repeatedly mischaracterized the impeachment evidence as if it indicated that the mailrequest incident occurred around the time of the murder. (See People v. Linscott (1991), 142 Ill.2d 22, 153 Ill.Dec. 249, 566 N.E.2d 1355 (prosecutor's closing remarks held beyond fair comment on the evidence).) If there was any doubt before, this conduct conclusively establishes that Rodriguez's prior inconsistent statements were introduced solely for the purpose of placing inadmissible hearsay before the jury. There is simply no other way to construe five separate references to defendant's mail request as having occurred around the time of the crime and two references to defendant's having been with Dugan. The record clearly demonstrates that the State argued as though Rodriguez's prior inconsistent statements were substantive evidence. The State yet contends that any error in the admission and use of this evidence was cured by a jury instruction drafted by the defense which adequately ensured that the jury would not give the evidence substantive weight. Following a brief recess during Mares' examination, the trial court instructed the jury: Any evidence that was received for a limited purpose should not be considered by you for any other purpose, and the believability of a witness may be challenged by evidence that on some former occasion he or she made a statement that was not consistent with his testimony in this case. Evidence of this kind may be considered by you only for the purpose of deciding the weight to be given the testimony you heard from the witness in this courtroom. At a later point during Mares' testimony, the trial court admonished the jury to recall the instruction. The court additionally stated, You are again told what a limited purpose situation is. The instruction was repeated during Wilkosz's examination and at the close of the evidence. To reduce the risk that a jury might consider a prior inconsistent statement as independent evidence with substantive character, the jury should be cautioned and properly instructed to limit its consideration of the statement to its narrow purpose. ( Bradford, 106 Ill.2d at 501, 88 Ill.Dec. 615, 478 N.E.2d 1341 (citing cases).) Even with instruction, however, such errors have been considered grounds for reversal. (See Bailey, 60 Ill.2d at 44, 322 N.E.2d 804 (finding error, despite jury instruction, where prosecution attempted to improperly impart substantive character to impeached witness' prior inconsistent statements).) And where Illinois courts have ruled that improper impeachment as well as improper substantive use of that evidence occurred, our courts have reversed without even considering the possible curative effect of jury instructions. See Weaver, 92 Ill.2d 545, 65 Ill.Dec. 944, 442 N.E.2d 255; see also People v. Johnson (1985), 138 Ill.App.3d 980, 93 Ill.Dec. 332, 486 N.E.2d 433; accord People v. Kimbrough (1970), 131 Ill.App.2d 36, 266 N.E.2d 431. The present case concerns both improper impeachment and an attempt to substantively use the impeachment evidence during closing argument. Under such circumstances, limiting instructions were inadequate to ensure that the jury considered the evidence for any proper purpose because there was none. The instructions here could not cure this fundamental error.