Court Opinion

ID: 9519592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:19:38.531898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:32.066463
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: The majority by its opinion concludes that the erroneous admission of a 1961 conviction was merely cumulative to evidence of a 1972 conviction for the crime of armed robbery and that the error was, therefore, harmless. The whole area of use of prior convictions to impeach, when the conviction itself tends to establish nothing with reference to truth and veracity, but rather suggests a continuing criminal propensity, was subject to a scholarly discussion in People v. Montgomery (1971), 47 Ill. 2d 510, 514, 268 N.E.2d 695, 697. There, Mr. Justice Schaefer quoted the trial court judge as saying: “ ‘The defendant is a dead duck once he is on trial before a jury and you present a record that he was convicted * * * twenty-five years ago # 6 If it’s any way close, the jury is going to hang him on that record, not on the evidence.’ ” Justice Schaefer then quoted the same expression of disbelief from an article by Dean Griswold in which it was said: “ ‘We accept much self-deception on this. We say that the evidence of the prior conviction is admissible only to impeach the defendant’s testimony, and not as evidence of the prior crimes themselves. Juries are solemnly instructed to this effect. Is there anyone who doubts what the effect of this evidence in fact is on the jury? If we know so clearly what we are actually doing, why do we pretend that we are not doing what we clearly are doing?’ ” 47 Ill. 2d 510, 514, 268 N.E.2d 695, 697-98. As I view this record, a 1972 conviction was used for purposes of impeachment, although there was no determination that the conviction of armed robbery then in any way related to truth and veracity now, nor was there a balancing test. The 1961 conviction was submitted to and considered by the jury and, indeed argued to the jury, notwithstanding the absence of a showing that it even could be considered even if it met the tests of Montgomery. It is fair to ask, if any of us doubt the effect of this kind of evidence upon the jury, whether the defendant was convicted upon the theory that having committed two prior offenses, he probably committed this one. Perhaps — but he should be convicted solely upon evidence of guilty and not upon the basis of his prior convictions.