{ "id": 3592337, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARRYL CARRADINE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Carradine", "decision_date": "1983-04-08", "docket_number": "No. 81\u20141131", "first_page": "82", "last_page": "88", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "114 Ill. App. 3d 82" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "287 N.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2672525 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/7/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "355 N.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2640424 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/42/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 N.E.2d 1039", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ill. App. 3d 1064", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5472745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/104/1064-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 1201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 Ill. App. 3d 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3346319 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/61/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S. Ct. 89", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 L. Ed. 2d 81", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 U.S. 845", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12079297, 12079621, 12079910, 12079742, 12079692, 12079217, 12079826, 12079475, 12079346, 12079986, 12079261, 12079390 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/400/0845-03", "/us/400/0845-07", "/us/400/0845-11", "/us/400/0845-09", "/us/400/0845-08", "/us/400/0845-01", "/us/400/0845-10", "/us/400/0845-06", "/us/400/0845-04", "/us/400/0845-12", "/us/400/0845-02", "/us/400/0845-05" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. App. 2d 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1585460 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/118/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 N.E.2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698-99" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 Ill. 2d 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2903225 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/47/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "420 N.E.2d 1161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12126697 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 N.E.2d 1056", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3179979 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/87/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 N.E.2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 2d 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2547836 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/87/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "396 N.E.2d 1139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5606134 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/78/0082-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 723, "char_count": 13262, "ocr_confidence": 0.74, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.6431994493998515e-08, "percentile": 0.2905536191492245 }, "sha256": "2171451aeb7833190ca4a393bdb962d5d22307f2f0050217b86a1860245820f8", "simhash": "1:7c3e302eebf574f6", "word_count": 2262 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:13.547892+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARRYL CARRADINE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted murder (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, pars. 8 \u2014 4, 9 \u2014 1), aggravated battery (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 12 \u2014 4) and armed violence (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, pars. 33A \u2014 2, 12 \u2014 4(b)(1)) and sentenced to a six-year term for attempted murder, and a three-year-consecutive sentence for armed violence in the Illinois Department of Corrections.\nDefendant appeals, alleging prejudicial error in (1) his impeachment as a witness by cross-examination regarding his prior arrests, (2) the trial court\u2019s misstatement of law concerning the credibility of a witness, and (3) the trial court\u2019s denial of a defense motion to reopen its case in chief to present a witness.\nThe following pertinent evidence was adduced at trial.\nSteven Davis testified for the State that on the evening of September 5, 1980, he went to the Garage Disco on 66th Street and King Drive in Chicago, Illinois, and was dancing with Tyesha Martin when defendant bumped into him and walked in between them. An exchange of words followed, and when Martin asked the two men to \u201ccool all this out,\u201d Davis walked away. Subsequently, defendant approached Davis in the washroom and stated that he had a \u201cviolation\u201d against him which Davis stated was a street term meaning \u201cthat I had something coming to me.\u201d\nDavis further testified that he had seen and talked to his girlfriend, Kumar Spencer, in the disco, and decided to leave with her at about 1:25 a.m. As he left the building, he encountered defendant who again said that he had a \u201cviolation\u201d against him, and, as they started to argue, a security guard for the disco told them to move across the street. They proceeded to cross the street onto a small embankment in a parking lot where a fist fight ensued. Defendant pulled a pearly white object out of his pocket, swung at him, and ran across the street where he was grabbed by the security guards. Davis noticed his jacket had been ripped and then saw his intestines were hanging out of his abdomen. He screamed, \u201cI've been cut, I'm stabbed,\u201d and he went back across the street to the disco seeking help. He was taken to the emergency room of Billings Hospital where he underwent surgery, remained hospitalized for four days, and subsequently received treatment for approximately a month following his injury.\nTyesha Martin testified for the defense that she went to the disco that evening with defendant\u2019s sister, Rene Carradine, and danced with both defendant and Davis. As she first danced with defendant, Davis interrupted and asked her where defendant\u2019s sister was. After she responded, defendant told Davis that it was not polite to interrupt their dance. Davis retorted that he was not talking to him but to the young lady, and left. Later on in the evening, defendant came up behind Davis as he was dancing with her, and briefly argued with him until Martin asked them to stop and Davis walked away.\nDefendant testified on his own behalf that he went to the disco with Charles and Daniel Hilson, and as was customary, they were searched by security guards before being allowed to enter the building. The search was a full pat down body search and the guards found nothing on them. Once inside, he argued with Davis when he interrupted his dance with Tyesha Martin, but denied that any argument between them occurred in the bathroom.\nHe further testified that subsequent to his dance with Martin, various young men approached him several times to ask him what gang he was in, and when he told them he was not in a gang they indicated by gesture that they were with the Disciples street gang.\nDefendant explained that he decided to leave after being approached by the Disciples, and walked outside the disco with Charles Hilson to wait for his sister who was to join them on their return home. While Hilson and several other young men gathered around them, Davis came outside the disco and defendant began to argue with him. Both men accused each other of having a \u201cviolation\u201d and they crossed the street to continue the argument with most of the other 15 to 20 young men following them.\nDefendant further testified that he pushed Davis down and ran from the group that was on the hill back to the disco to seek protection from Davis and the crowd, and that he did not stab Davis.\nOn direct examination, defendant testified that he spoke with a State\u2019s Attorney at the police station who asked him, inter alia, what his address was \u201cand have I ever been locked up before. I said no.\u201d\nOn re-cross-examination the following colloquy ensued:\n\u201cSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: Mr. Carradine, you say when you talked to the State\u2019s Attorney you tried to answer his questions truthfully, didn\u2019t you?\nDEFENDANT: I did answer them truthfully.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: And you say one of the things he asked you was if you were ever locked up before, right?\nDEFENDANT: Yes.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: And you told him no. Is that what you told the State\u2019s Attorney as to whether you had been locked up before? Did you tell him no, Mr. Davis? Mr. Carradine?\nDEFENDANT: I think so.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: But that\u2019s not true, is it? Mr. Carradine?\nDEFENDANT: No.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: As a matter of fact, Mr. Carradine, you have been locked up more than once before, haven\u2019t you?\n* * *\n[Y]ou got locked up on the 23d of January for battery, didn\u2019t you? You remember that, don\u2019t you?\nDEFENDANT: Yes.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: And you remember on the 10th of July, 1980, when they locked you up for burglary. Do you remember that one?\nDEFENDANT: Burglary?\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: Yes.\nDEFENDANT: Yes.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: Do you remember the 18th of July, \u201980 just eight days after that one when they locked you up for rape?\nDEFENDANT: Yes.\nSTATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: But those things slipped your mind when you talked to the State\u2019s Attorney when you were truthful with them? You just forgot about it, right.\nNo, I didn\u2019t forget about it.\u201d DEFENDANT:\nThe defense attorney attempted to rehabilitate the defendant by questioning him regarding his prior arrests but the trial court refused to allow testimony concerning any prior arrests, trials, or convictions, although defendant had not been tried or convicted for the prior arrests.\nDuring this time the trial court made the following statement in the presence of the jury: \u201cFor the fourth time, the question was, was he ever locked up, it\u2019s not for the jury to determine the credibility of this witness, not the charges on what he was charged with [sic].\u201d\nThe defense moved to re-open its case in chief after the State rested because it had found a new witness. The trial court denied this defense motion.\nDuring the State\u2019s closing argument, the prosecution referred to the defendant\u2019s comment about having been \u201clocked up.\u201d \u201cNow, [the public defender] said, you can look in that man\u2019s face and see that he is telling the truth; but aside from looking in his face remember the answer that he gave about what he told the State\u2019s Attorney \u2014 it was a State\u2019s Attorney in the police station that apparently asked him have you ever been locked up before \u2014 that he volunteered when his attorney was questioning him. Now I said, you\u2019re honest with everything that you told the State\u2019s Attorney? He said, yes, I was. I said, were you honest with the State\u2019s Attorney when you told him you haven\u2019t been locked up before? He said, yes. Did you tell the State\u2019s Attorney about being locked up for battery? No. That wasn\u2019t honest, was it? No. Did you tell the State\u2019s Attorney about being locked up for burglary? No. That wasn\u2019t honest, was it? No. And did you forget also to tell the State\u2019s Attorney when you were locked up for rape? Yes, I forgot that, too. He told you on the stand he wasn\u2019t honest with the State\u2019s Attorney and I will tell you right now he has not been honest with you.\u201d\nThe jury subsequently found defendant guilty of attempted murder, aggravated battery, and armed violence. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years for attempted murder and three years for armed violence to run concurrently. The aggravated battery counts merged into the attempted murder charge for sentencing.\nOpinion\nDefendant first argues that prejudicial error occurred in his impeachment as a witness by cross-examination regarding his prior arrests. Although the State contends that defendant has waived any claim of error by failing to object at trial, we find that we have ample authority under Supreme Court Rule 615(a) (73 Ill. 2d R. 615(a)) to consider substantial rights even though not properly preserved at trial.\nGenerally, evidence that a defendant has committed an offense which is separate and distinct from the offense for which he is being tried is not admissible because of its prejudicial effect (People v. Turner (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 82, 396 N.E.2d 1139) as no question is more damaging to a defendant with a jury than one that suggests or intimates that he is a criminal or has been charged with criminal offenses. (People v. Harges (1967), 87 Ill. App. 2d 376, 231 N.E.2d 650.) Thus, proof of a prior conviction is inadmissible unless relevant to show motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake or modus operandi (People v. Walls (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 256, 408 N.E.2d 1056) and the trial court must balance its relevance against its tendency to inflame and prejudice the jury. People v. Olson (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 193, 420 N.E.2d 1161.\nIn People v. Montgomery (1971), 47 Ill. 2d 510, 268 N.E.2d 695, our supreme court established further guidelines to the general rule and held that only convictions of crimes punishable by sentences of more than one year, or involving dishonesty or false statement may be admitted, and only if the conviction or release of the testifying witness, whichever occurred later, was less than 10 years prior to the testimony. People v. Montgomery (1971), 47 Ill. 2d 510, 516, 268 N.E.2d 695, 698-99.\nThe rules relating to impeachment of witnesses are the same where it is the accused who testifies (People v. Gilmore (1969), 118 Ill. App. 2d 100, 254 N.E.2d 590, cert. denied (1970), 400 U.S. 845, 27 L. Ed. 2d 81, 91 S. Ct. 89), although, of course, the danger of unfair prejudice increases where the conviction relates more closely to the accused (People v. Brown (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 180, 377 N.E.2d 1201) due to the possibility that the jury will convict a defendant because it appears that he is of bad character and therefore probably committed the crime, rather than because of the evidence of his guilt or innocence in the case on trial. People v. Hall (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 1064, 433 N.E.2d 1039.\nHowever, it is also clear that a prosecutor may cross-examine regarding any other convictions when a witness himself has \u201copened the door\u201d by testifying on direct examination regarding some aspect of his criminal record (People v. Brown (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 180, 377 N.E.2d 1201), and, where a witness affirmatively states that he has never been arrested, there is some authority to indicate that the prosecutor may then cross-examine regarding any prior arrests. Peo ple v. Johnson (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 194, 198, 355 N.E.2d 577, 579.\nIn the present case, however, defendant\u2019s sole reference to his past criminal record was that a State\u2019s Attorney asked him at the police station if he had ever been \u201clocked up\u201d before and he responded \u201cno.\u201d Even assuming, arguendo, that proper cross-examination followed, the use of the phrase \u201clocked up\u201d during both cross-examination and closing argument connotes a conviction, which might serve to alter the jury\u2019s perception of the defendant and which is ambiguous at best.\nThus, we find that use of the ambiguous phrase \u201clocked up\u201d for impeachment purposes, coupled 'with the trial court\u2019s failure to allow defendant to explain the circumstances of the arrests and their dispositions, or to give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the limited relevance of such evidence, far outweighed the probative value of such evidence. (See also People v. Hudson (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 333, 287 N.E.2d 297.) As a result, defendant was denied the right to choose to explain the circumstances and disposition of the arrests to the jury in order to remedy the danger of prejudice. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court\u2019s refusal to permit the defense to present such evidence was plain error.\nAs to the other alleged errors concerning the trial court\u2019s misstatement of law, and the denial of the defense motion to re-open its case to present a witness, we note that these issues are not likely to occur again at retrial and we do not consider them here.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nSULLIVAN and MEJDA, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ" } ], "attorneys": [ "Joseph A. Ettinger and Rick M. Schoenfield, both of Ettinger & Schoenfield, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, David A. Shapiro, and James Klein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARRYL CARRADINE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 81\u20141131\nOpinion filed April 8, 1983.\nJoseph A. Ettinger and Rick M. Schoenfield, both of Ettinger & Schoenfield, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, David A. Shapiro, and James Klein, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0082-01", "first_page_order": 104, "last_page_order": 110 }