Court Opinion

ID: 9884810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:15:34.99782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:40.920437
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE RYAN, dissenting: I dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons set forth below. In laying the foundation for the impeachment of Daretta Jones the prosecutor asked questions which quite obviously called for answers which would contain objectionable material. It is also clear that it was part of the defense counsel’s trial strategy to permit this witness to talk about the plea bargaining discussion with the prosecutor. He therefore did not object to the questions because at the same time that the prosecutor was laying the foundation for the impeachment of this witness he was also laying the foundation for defense counsel’s redirect examination which was designed to show that the State had a weak case against this defendant and was trying to salvage something by desperately seeking to bargain for a plea of guilty, but that the defendant and this witness steadfastly maintained his innocence. To understand this strategy one had only to consider the cross-examination quoted in the majority opinion with this redirect examination which appears immediately thereafter: “Question. Mrs. Jones, this conversation [the prosecutor] has been referring to, that occurred in this building? Answer. Yes, sir. * * * Question. You had several conversations with him? Answer. Yes, sir. Question. Each time he wanted to make a deal with you, is that right; Answer. Yes, sir. Question. He wanted you to tell your brother to plead guilty to robbery then he would drop the murder case, is that right? Answer. Yes. Question. He was going to give him ten to fourteen years? Answer. Yes, sir. Question. And did you tell him your brother wasn’t about to plead guilty to something he didn’t do? Answer. Yes, sir.” In order to produce the strategic maneuver and to make his point with the jury, counsel did not object and permitted the prosecutor to set the stage for this scene. Now having received the benefit of his strategy (defendant was found not guilty of murder) defendant urges that this cross-examination was error and this court holds that it was error so prejudicial as to require reversal even in the absence of an objection. Our Rule 615 (50 Ill.2d R. 615(a)) provides that plain errors affecting substantial rights may be noticed on appeal although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court. There was no objection by the defense counsel to this line of questioning except upon rebuttal testimony by Detective Tate and then the objection was not that the testimony concerned plea bargaining but only that the conversation took place outside the presence of the defendant. This question was not therefore preserved for review unless it can be said to be within the “plain error” concept of Rule 615. I presume the majority opinion is saying that regardless of counsel’s failure to object the trial judge should have injected himself into the^ case and stopped the prosecutor’s cross-examination of this witness. An experienced trial judge, as this judge was, is rightfully reluctant to interrupt the development of counsel’s trial strategy and should not be expected to do so. The defense counsel did not object to this line of questioning. He permitted it to continue hoping it would develop to his benefit. For these reasons I cannot concur in the court’s opinion reversing the conviction on this basis.