Opinion ID: 2148851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Defendant's Right to Cross-Examine a Witness for the Prosecution

Text: Defendant next argues that the trial court denied him his sixth amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him where the court limited his cross-examination of Jean Rogoz. During cross-examination of Rogoz, defense counsel asked her whether the victim had stayed at Joaquin's house the night prior to his death. She responded that he had not. The following exchange then occurred: Q. Do you recall that he was not there that evening? A. Right. Q. So, it is your testimony that he came to pick you up the next morning? A. I called him to come get me. Q. Do you ever remember telling a police detective and that would be McLaughlin that you had stayed overnight there with Danny Schneider and had spent the evening of August 31st to September 1st using drugs? A. The first time I went in, I didn't tell them the whole truth. Q. My question is, do you remember telling the police officer-A. I don't remember telling her. Q. Let me show you something that might refresh your recollection. MR. GOEBEL. Objection, judge. THE COURT: Sustained. You can perfect it with the officer. MR. CHERONIS: I would think I could test her recollection with anything. THE COURT: No, not with that. Those are the detective's words. Defendant contends that, because the trial court sustained the objection to the introduction of the police report, defense counsel was unable refresh Rogoz's recollection as to her prior statements to the detective about what had occurred on the evening on August 31. Since he could not refresh Rogoz's recollection, defendant continues, the trial court frustrated his attempt to compel Rogoz to admit that she had made a prior inconsistent statement, i.e., that the victim stayed at Joaquin's residence the evening before his death. Defendant maintains that the trial court thus violated his right to confront a key prosecution witness, entitling him to a new trial. The record, however, belies defendant's contention that he was merely attempting to refresh Rogoz's recollection with the introduction of the detective's report. Instead, it reveals that defendant sought to impeach her with the report. As the trial court properly recognized, once Rogoz testified that she did not remember giving the particular statement to the detective, defendant could only impeach her through the testimony of the detective to whom she allegedly made the statement. [2] Defense counsel could not attempt to impeach Rogoz with the detective's written statement. See People v. Lucas, 132 Ill.2d 399, 430, 139 Ill.Dec. 447, 548 N.E.2d 1003 (1989). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant merely sought to refresh Rogoz's recollection with the detective's statement, he failed to lay a proper foundation in attempting to do so. It is true, as defendant contends, that a police report may be used to refresh recollection. Rigor v. Howard Liquors, Inc., 10 Ill.App.3d 1004, 1010, 295 N.E.2d 491 (1973). However, it is fundamental that a witness' memory can be refreshed only after it has been established that the witness has no memory concerning the facts in question. People v. Kraus, 377 Ill. 539, 545, 37 N.E.2d 182 (1941). If a witness has testified that his memory is exhausted, a written memorandum may be used to refresh and assist his memory, but the manner and mode of refreshing a witness' memory rests within the discretion of the trial court. People v. Van Dyk, 40 Ill.App.3d 275, 279, 352 N.E.2d 327 (1976). In the instant case, defendant's cross-examination of Rogoz did not establish that her memory was exhausted or that she needed the detective's report to refresh her recollection as to the events which took place the evening of August 31. Rather, Rogoz testified that she did not recall making one particular statement to a police detective. That, in and of itself, was not sufficient to fulfill the foundational requirement that the witness' memory had been exhausted. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow defense counsel to refresh Rogoz's recollection with the detective report.