Court Opinion

ID: 9734007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:22:34.995463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.016872
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE WEBBER, concurring in part and dissenting: I agree with most of what is said in the principal opinion. There was no violation of Miranda, and in view of Weaver our opinion in Church is of doubtful validity. The entire matter was set to rest by the change in Supreme Court Rule 238 (87 Ill. 2d R. 238), effective April 1, 1982. On whatever theory, impeachment of Logan and Williams was proper. However, even a casual reading of this record demonstrates that the State’s Attorney was not attempting impeachment but was putting the prior out-of-court statements before the jury as substantive evidence. I disagree that this is not plain error. The theory of impeachment is that of undermining the credibility of the witness through the use of the prior inconsistent statement. It is not intended to place substantive evidence before the jury. People v. Bailey (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 37, 322 N.E.2d 804. The State’s Attorney appeared little concerned with the testimony of Logan and Williams before the jury; he was primarily concerned with their out-of-court declarations. His examination of them consisted largely of demanding that they affirm or deny these declarations, and in his closing argument he made several references to them and intimated that they were substantive evidence. The State’s case was almost entirely circumstantial with the exception of the defendant’s own statements. The State’s case was strong, but not overwhelming. The defendant’s identification came only from Logan and Williams, both of them apparently deeply involved in the crime, and no one ever identified the items seized from the defendant as being those either used or taken in the robbery. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.