Court Opinion

ID: 9706218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:35:26.026229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:20.413672
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE LINN, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that trial error requires reversal of this case for a new trial. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, neither error cited as grounds for reversal is of such a substantial nature as to deny defendant a fair trial. I disagree that the alleged defect in the instruction on the justifiable use of force is cause for reversal. The majority concedes that defendant did not preserve his specific objection to this instruction at trial, but considers the issue under Supreme Court Rue 451(c). (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 451(c).) Failure to object to an instruction at the trial court level ordinarily operates as a waiver of any such objection on appeal. (People v. Mallett (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 388, 259 N.E.2d 241.) Supreme Court Rule 451(c) permits an exception to the rule by providing that substantial defects are not waived by failure to make timely objections if the interests of justice so require. (See People v. Robinson (1974), 21 Ill. App. 3d 343, 315 N.E.2d 95.) However, to avoid waiver for failure to make an objection, defendant must establish that the defect in the instruction is substantial, and that the giving of the instruction resulted in a denial of a fair trial and justice. People v. Knox (1969), 116 Ill. App. 2d 427, 252 N.E.2d 549; People v. Price (1968), 96 Ill. App. 2d 86, 238 N.E.2d 881. Under the circumstances of the present case, the giving of the instruction in question did not deny defendant a fair trial. The unrebutted evidence indicates that the shooting incident arose from an argument at the conclusion of a dice game. The State’s witnesses testified that defendant pulled a gun during the argument. Under defendant’s theory of the case, Freddie Johnson threatened defendant with the weapon in an attempt to recover his gambling losses. Even if defendant’s theory had been believed by the jury, the language of the justifiable use of force instruction given to the jury adequately applied to the facts as alleged by defendant. As there was no objection from defendant and no omission of substance, I can find no prejudicial error in the instruction as given. Although I agree the exclusion of impeachment evidence as a discovery sanction is a drastic measure and not justified in this case, I believe that the exclusion of Knox’s prior impeaching statement was harmless error. An undue limitation of cross-examination by the defendant warrants reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion and a showing of manifest prejudice to the defendant. (People v. Gallo (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 343, 297 N.E.2d 569.) Any error in restricting the cross-examination of a witness constitutes reversible error only if the judgment of conviction must stand or fall upon the credibility of that witness. (People v. Boyce (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 549, 366 N.E.2d 914; People v. Banks (1968), 103 Ill. App. 2d 180, 243 N.E.2d 669.) Improper limitation of the cross-examination of a witness whose testimony merely buttresses the prosecution may be deemed harmless. People v. Washington (1967), 81 Ill. App. 2d 162, 225 N.E.2d 673, cert. denied (1968), 390 U.S. 991, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1298, 88 S. Ct. 1190. In this case, the testimony of Eugene Knox was not crucial or essential to the prosecution. Walter Davis, an eyewitness, saw the gun in defendant’s hand when Freddie Johnson was shot. Johnny Wilson’s testimony corroborated Davis’ account. Knox, however, was in the back of the store at that time and did not see who shot Johnson. The record contains ample evidence to support a conviction on either the theory of voluntary manslaughter or murder for Johnson’s death without reference to Knox’s testimony. Knox did see defendant shoot Johnny Wilson, and his testimony on that issue was corroborated by Wilson and Davis. Knox’s testimony was, at best, cumulative of the evidence presented by the other prosecution witnesses. For these reasons, I would hold that any trial error was harmless and affirm the convictions.