{ "id": 2604409, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Lechner, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Lechner", "decision_date": "1965-06-24", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 64-95", "first_page": "472", "last_page": "476", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 Ill. App. 2d 472" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "104 NE 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 Ill 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4750733 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/262/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 NE2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 Ill2d 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5329567 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/18/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 NE2d 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill2d 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5333858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/17/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 NE 2d 669", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "391 Ill 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2513012 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/391/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 NE2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Ill2d 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2784724 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/11/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 NE2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Ill2d 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5363782 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 NE2d 627", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ill2d 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5315502 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/1/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 NE2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill2d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2713818 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/7/0465-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 425, "char_count": 6353, "ocr_confidence": 0.536, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.618166019043588e-08, "percentile": 0.49050465876581995 }, "sha256": "010df605ab3ac995c2f9d4f018fef2037fc0dfbc8b0a6094b7e9b8aa8fd2da97", "simhash": "1:31949cf57992ea9b", "word_count": 1080 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:38.278664+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "EBERSPACHER, P. J. and MORAN, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Lechner, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GOLDENHERSH, J.\nThe defendant, Joe Lechner was tried by jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County and convicted of the crimes of rape (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 38, \u00a7 11-1), and deviate sexual assault (c 38, \u00a7 11-4). He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 3 nor more than 10 years on each offense, the two sentences to run concurrently.\nThe appeal presents only one question: whether the trial court erred in admitting certain rebuttal testimony. In view of the narrow issue to be reviewed, a statement of the facts is not required. Suffice it to say, this court has carefully examined the evidence adduced at the trial, and the testimony of the prosecutrix is amply corroborated, both by medical evidence, and testimony concerning events prior to the commission of the offense. The People v. Hiller, 7 Ill2d 465, 131 NE2d 25. Unless the admission of the rebuttal testimony was reversible error, the judgment must be affirmed.\nThe complainant is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The offense charged was allegedly committed on Saturday, April 4, 1964. It is not disputed that on Wednesday, April 8, 1964, defendant\u2019s wife, daughter, of the complaining witness, called her mother by telephone. The call was made from Peoria, where defendant and his wife reside, and reached the complainant at a residence in Hillsboro, where she was employed as a baby sitter.\nDefendant\u2019s wife testified in his behalf. On direct examination she was not interrogated regarding the telephone call. On cross-examination, the state\u2019s attorney asked her whether she had called her mother on April 8. She replied that she had, that she called three times before reaching her, and when they talked, her mother was at her place of employment. The cross-examination continued as follows:\n\u201cQ. Did you at any such conversation at that time say to your mother that if your mother didn\u2019t drop the case that Joe would make you say that your mother was crazy?\nA. No sir.\nQ. Did you want her to drop the case ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. You called her three times that day?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. And you called her from where ?\nA. From work and from home.\nQ. What was the purpose of the call ?\nA. To try to get her not to ruin our lives by bringing these charges.\u201d\nIn rebuttal, the people called complainant\u2019s employer, who testified that when defendant\u2019s wife called, he listened to the conversation on an extension telephone. He testified as follows:\n\u201cQ. You were testifying concerning a telephone conversation that was made on, to your home on the Wednesday following April 4 of 1964, is that correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. And it was a conversation that you heard between Mrs. Lechner and her mother ?\nA. That\u2019s correct. Yes sir.\nQ. Now, Mr. Wisdom, did Mrs. Lechner say this over the phone to her mother, that if her mother didn\u2019t drop the case that Joe would make Mrs. Lechner say that her mother was crazy?\nMB. GrINOS: I object, Your Honor, to the question on the ground that it was made out of the presence of the defendant.\nTHE COUBT: The purpose of this is direct rebuttal of some testimony of another witness, is that correct?\nA. Yes sir. That\u2019s the sole purpose.\nTHE COURT: Objection overruled.\nQ. Did Mrs. Lechner say that ?\nA. Yes sir.\u201d\nDefendant contends that it was error to admit the rebuttal testimony since it was not relevant to any testimony of the witness whom it was intended to impeach, and further, that the questions on cross-examination were improper, since their sole and obvious purpose was to lay the foundation for the impeaching testimony. Defendant concedes that a witness may be impeached by showing that he has made contradictory statements, but argues that he cannot, in this manner, be impeached as to collateral matters. He urges that such impeaching testimony is not admissible'unless the fact which it seeks to prove would be admissible independent of the contradiction. Assuming that defendant has correctly stated the rule, a rule of equal antiquity and honor holds admissible any prior statement which purports to show interest, bias, prejudice or motive of the witness. Vol III, Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Page 694.\nIn The People v. Sampson, 1 Ill2d 399, 115 NE2d 627, also involving a sex offense, the state\u2019s attorney, during the cross-examination of the defendant\u2019s character witness, was permitted to ask whether the witness had called on the complainant\u2019s grandmother to induce her to have the charge against defendant dismissed. The court, at page 404, in ruling on defendant\u2019s contention of error, said: \u201cThere is no question that the State\u2019s Attorney had the right to cross-examine the witness in regard to his bias, prejudice or interest in the outcome of the suit.\u201d It follows that impeachment of the type presented in the case at bar is proper for the same purpose. In The People v. Morgan, 28 Ill2d 55, at page 63, 190 NE2d 755, the court said, \u201cIt is well established that evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness is admissible to impeach the witness\u2019 credibility. Such evidence is. not admitted as proof of the truth of the facts seated by the witness, but to cast doubt on the testimony of the witness by showing his inconsistency . . . .\u201d To the same effect are The People v. Moses, 11 Ill2d 84, 142 NE2d 1, and The People v. Smith, 391 Ill 172, 62 NE 2d 669.\nDefendant relies upon The People v. Kirkwood, 17 Ill2d 23, 160 NE2d 766, and The People v. Matthews, 18 Ill2d 164, 163 NE2d 469. These cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. Defendant also cites The People v. Pfanschmidt, 262 Ill 411, 104 NE 804. That opinion does not aid defendant, and the court\u2019s discussion of the difference between the testimony of the two rebuttal witnesses called to impeach the defendant\u2019s witness, Geisel (see pages 462, 463), demonstrates the distinction between collateral issues and proper impeachment. The trial court\u2019s ruling on the evidence was correct, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nEBERSPACHER, P. J. and MORAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GOLDENHERSH, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "George Ginos, of Hillsboro, and Robert H. Rice, of East St. Lonis, for appellant.", "Otto E. Funk, State\u2019s Attorney, of Hillsboro, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Lechner, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 64-95.\nFifth District.\nJune 24, 1965\nRehearing denied August 5, 1965.\nGeorge Ginos, of Hillsboro, and Robert H. Rice, of East St. Lonis, for appellant.\nOtto E. Funk, State\u2019s Attorney, of Hillsboro, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0472-01", "first_page_order": 484, "last_page_order": 488 }