Opinion ID: 2219110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Evidence and Argument of Witness Intimidation

Text: Defendant next contends that plain error occurred by the admission of McCraney's testimony that he was fearful of defendant, had been threatened, and that he and his family were relocated. Defendant also maintains that the State was improperly allowed to argue, in closing, such alleged intimidation of McCraney and his family. Prior to trial, the State provided the defense with information that McCraney had received sums of money for relocation purposes. During direct examination of McCraney at trial, the State elicited testimony concerning several relocations, and the amounts of money McCraney received from the State for each move. Before giving that testimony, McCraney testified that he did not identify himself when he initially called the police because they (the suspects) had friends and relatives in the area, and he was concerned about the safety of his wife and four daughters. McCraney also attributed his request for relocation to his concerns for the safety of his family. Defense counsel made no objection to this testimony. In response to subsequent questioning regarding what he was doing at the time he was called to testify in 1984, McCraney replied that he was living with his family and being threatened. Defense counsel objected to this testimony. The trial court, however, overruled the objection on grounds that McCraney's testimony of being threatened was probative of the reasons for his relocation. The trial court also concluded, inter alia, that the testimony was not prejudicial because the jury was aware that both defendants were in custody in 1984. The State continued to examine McCraney about his 1984 relocation and McCraney testified that the State paid $1,400 to a car dealer in his behalf. When asked why this money was paid, McCraney responded, [B]ecause I had been approached by three men. Defense counsel then interrupted with an objection which was sustained. Despite defendant's failure to object and raise this issue in a written post-trial motion, we will review pursuant to the plain error doctrine, as the evidence in this case is closely balanced. People v. Herrett (1990), 137 Ill.2d 195, 209, 148 Ill.Dec. 695, 561 N.E.2d 1; 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a). In the present case, the State could reasonably anticipate that the defense would attempt to impeach McCraney during cross-examination with evidence that he had received several sums of money from the State for relocation. (See People v. Gonzalez (1984), 104 Ill.2d 332, 337, 84 Ill.Dec. 457, 472 N.E.2d 417, quoting Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 316-17, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 354 (the partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony); see also People v. Harris (1988), 123 Ill.2d 113, 147, 122 Ill.Dec. 76, 526 N.E.2d 335.) Furthermore, the State could expect that the trial court would allow defense counsel the widest latitude in establishing any bias or motive on McCraney's part. See People v. Wilkerson (1981), 87 Ill.2d 151, 156, 57 Ill.Dec. 628, 429 N.E.2d 526. Considering that prospect, the State obviously chose to anticipatorily impeach McCraney with questions concerning the money he received and the purposes for which it was used. Supreme Court Rule 238(a) allows such anticipatory impeachment to reduce the prejudicial effect of certain evidence upon a witness' credibility. (134 Ill.2d R. 238(a). See People v. Soskins (1984), 128 Ill.App.3d 564, 573, 83 Ill.Dec. 517, 470 N.E.2d 643.) Certainly, this evidence was probative of any bias that McCraney might have. (See Gabosch v. Tullman (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 908, 913, 316 N.E.2d 226.) Significantly, defense counsel did not find this line of inquiry objectionable and in fact cross-examined McCraney regarding the relocations and monies received as the State had anticipated. Consequently, we cannot say that defendant was prejudiced, and find that the admission of this testimony was a proper exercise of discretion. With respect to McCraney's fears for the safety of his family, McCraney's testimony did not link his fear to defendant. While the mere fact that the evidence did not link the threats to defendant does not vitiate any possibility of prejudice (see People v. West (1971), 3 Ill.App.3d 106, 119, 278 N.E.2d 233), prejudice to the defendant must still be judged by considering the nature of the evidence, itself. Here, McCraney simply made general statements about being afraid, a reaction quite reasonable for any person in McCraney's position. Hence, we do not find that allowance of McCraney's testimony that he was afraid to involve himself prejudiced defendant. Concerning McCraney's two responses that he was threatened, we find that such statements were properly allowed even without curative instruction. Each of McCraney's responses mentioning threats were probative of the reasons for McCraney's relocations. Even so, McCraney's statements appear not to have been purposely elicited in that one at least was voluntarily offered and both were nonresponsive to the particular questioning. Even defense counsel acknowledged this fact during a sidebar at the time (I am afraid the man is going to answer something that you didn't ask him). Considering the nature of the evidence here, and its manner of introduction, we cannot say that such testimony was improperly allowed. This case is not comparable to Dudley v. Duckworth (7th Cir.1988), 854 F.2d 967, relied upon by defendant. In Dudley, the prosecutor elicited a witness' testimony of anonymous telephone threats supposedly in order to explain the witness' nervousness during his direct examination. The appeals court found no indication from its review of the record that the witness was nervous except for a suggestion which was prompted by the prosecutor's questioning. The court noted that the prosecution made no attempt to explore that part of the witness' testimony which seemed to indicate that his condition might be explained on some basis other than threats. Additionally, the court found a strong possibility that the witness' condition was simply a pretext for the prosecution's line of inquiry, inasmuch as no measures were taken to calm the witness, and after testifying to the threats, there was no further concern with his condition. By contrast, in the present case, there was good reason for the prosecution to undertake the particular line of questioning which elicited the complained-of responses. In addition, the State did not manipulate the questioning in such a way that encouraged McCraney to testify about threats, nor did the State continue to explore the subject of threats. McCraney's statements were quite brief and, therefore, must be viewed in the context of this lengthy trial. Furthermore, the State did not rely upon any evidence of threats during closing argument. Finally, defendant contends that the prosecution improperly emphasized evidence of McCraney's intimidation during closing argument. Defense counsel did not object to the allegedly prejudicial argument, and any error would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial, or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process. ( People v. Owens (1984), 102 Ill.2d 88, 104, 79 Ill.Dec. 663, 464 N.E.2d 261.) We have considered the comments allegedly constituting prejudicial error and they do not rise to either level. During closing the State remarked that McCraney had children and did not know if he wanted to get involved. The prosecutor argued that McCraney called police, reasoning to himself: [M]aybe I will be willing to testify if they are picked up and I can be relocated. The prosecutor then urged the jury to consider McCraney: Charles McCraney is just a decent human being. I am sure today he regrets ever making that phone call or at least ever coming forward. You heard that he had to go to court over and over again, and be questioned at length by lawyers as Mr. Gant.    [F]or gosh sake, he has even had to move his wife and daughters. He lost a job from E & R Securities, because of his involvement in this case. The argument that McCraney was relocated several times was based upon evidence properly admitted at trial to which defendant did not object and which he, in fact, explored on cross-examination. (See People v. Owens, 102 Ill.2d at 105, 79 Ill. Dec. 663, 464 N.E.2d 261.) Moreover, the State's argument did not argue any correlation between McCraney's relocation and any threats, nor did it emphasize McCraney's fears. Accordingly, we do not find that defendant suffered any prejudice by these remarks. Admission of Prior Consistent Statements Defendant maintains that the admission into evidence of Gray's grand jury testimony as a prior consistent statement denied him a fair trial and constituted plain error. At trial, codefendant's counsel's cross-examination impugned Gray's motive to testify and extensively questioned her expectations as to leniency regarding her pending retrial. Gray was also substantially impeached by the introduction of her prior inconsistent statements given during previous proceedings. Without objection, the State subsequently introduced, through a court-reporter witness, Gray's grand jury testimony. Again, despite defendant's failure to object at trial and raise this issue in a written post-trial motion, we take cognizance of this issue by invocation of the plain error rule. 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a). A witness may not be corroborated on direct examination by proof of prior statements consistent with his testimony. ( People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill.2d 465, 472, 292 N.E.2d 409.) Moreover, when a witness is impeached by means of a prior inconsistent statement, if a consistent statement does not disprove or explain the making of the inconsistent statement, it is not admissible. (M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 611.14 (5th ed. 1990).) However, prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut a charge or an inference that the witness is motivated to testify falsely or that his testimony is of recent fabrication, and such evidence is admissible to show that he told the same story before the motive came into existence or before the time of the alleged fabrication. People v. Clark (1972), 52 Ill.2d 374, 389, 288 N.E.2d 363; People v. Titone (1986), 115 Ill.2d 413, 423, 105 Ill.Dec. 923, 505 N.E.2d 300; see also People v. Harris (1988), 123 Ill.2d 113, 139, 122 Ill.Dec. 76, 526 N.E.2d 335; M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 611.14 (5th ed. 1990). Clearly, the defense raised an inference that Gray's trial testimony was motivated by expectations of leniency and was of recent fabrication. Yet, defendant claims that Gray's 1978 grand jury testimony did not qualify as a prior consistent statement because Gray had the same motive to fabricate at that time as she did at trial. (See People v. Emerson (1983), 97 Ill.2d 487, 501, 74 Ill.Dec. 11, 455 N.E.2d 41.) According to defendant, Gray must have considered, in 1978, that, given the conduct of police and prosecutors towards her, her best strategy was to cooperate with the authorities by fabricating a version of events. We rejected a similar argument upon a similar series of facts in Titone, 115 Ill.2d at 423, 105 Ill.Dec. 923, 505 N.E.2d 300, and held that the trial court's apparent conclusion was supported by the record and was proper. Likewise, in the instant case, we cannot say that the trial court erred by admitting Gray's grand jury testimony.