Court Opinion

ID: 9526663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:21:56.301099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:04.286748
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, specially concurring: The majority, in its analysis of Supreme Court Rule 238 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 238), has confused the concepts of hostile, occurrence and court’s witnesses. This is understandable since the authorities cited by the majority are contradictory in defining and applying these concepts. Because of the confusion, I disclaim any agreement with the majority’s reasoning and I believe no useful purpose would be served in attempting to clarify the issues. Any error which the trial court might have committed in the application of Rule 238 was harmless due to the fact that Ms. Willard, after being declared a hostile witness, was called as a defense witness and thereafter properly cross-examined by the State’s Attorney as to her prior inconsistent statements.