Court Opinion

ID: 9725616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:56:11.448276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:17.157139
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GREEN, dissenting: I agree that the situation here is a perfect example of where the balancing test of Montgomery would be best served by use of the "mere fact” method of impeachment of a testifying defendant. However, I am also concerned with the position of the circuit judge that the "mere fact” method is not yet required in this State even under the compelling circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court of Illinois has never applied or discussed the rule even under compelling circumstances. In Williams (161 Ill. 2d 1, 641 N.E.2d 296), the circumstances favoring use of the "mere fact” rule were even stronger than here, as the court held that impeachment of a defendant charged with murder by introduction of his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, although error, was not reversible error. In Williams (173 Ill. 2d 48, 670 N.E.2d 638), the argument for use of the "mere fact” rule was less compelling, but its use would still have been helpful. There, the major thrust of the prosecution’s charges was murder and the supreme court held the defendant was properly impeached by evidence of his prior conviction for aggravated battery. Thus, in both Williams cases, convictions for crimes of violence were used to impeach defendants charged with murder. Absent precedent requiring application of the "mere fact” rule, I do not deem the conviction of defendant here was error. He was impeached on a prior conviction of burglary, the very offense with which he was charged, but the court did apply the balancing test. Unlike the impeaching evidence in the Williams cases, the impeaching evidence in this case involved dishonesty, a factor given great significance for its probative value in regard to the veracity of the defendant. See Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d at 516, 268 N.E.2d at 698. Accordingly, I would affirm.