People v. Bibbs
| Decision Date | 29 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 52766 |
| Citation | 253 N.E.2d 179,115 Ill.App.2d 200 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter BIBBS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago, for defendant-appellant; George L. Lincoln, James J. Doherty, Chicago, of counsel.
Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Elmer C. Kissane, Michael D. Stevenson, Chicago, of counsel.
Defendant Walter Bibbs was found guilty in a jury trial upon a charge of robbery and was sentenced to a term of not less than fifteen, nor more than twenty years. The facts supporting the conviction can be summarized as follows:
On the evening of March 4, 1967, Leroy Nix was working in a drug store located in Chicago when a man (subsequently identified as the defendant) entered the store and asked for a doctor's office. Fifteen to twenty minutes after this man left, he reappeared accompanied by another man and demanded money from Mr. Nix. Mr. Nix gave the defendant between forty-five and fifty dollars and the man fled the premises. Another witness noticed the men enter the drug store and subsequently observed them running from the establishment. A squad car was hailed and the defendant, along with Ronald McEwen, was apprehended by the officers. A search of the defendant revealed that he possessed $47.35 in currency and change, the bills being of the denominations taken from the drug store. Mr. Nix identified the defendant immediately after his apprehension and at the trial, as did the bystander who summoned the police. The police officers corroborated the identification as well as the arrest and search of the defendant.
In seeking a reversal of his conviction, the defendant contends that the trial judge committed error by excluding certain testimony and the inclusion of the defendant's prior record for impeachment purposes. Alternatively, the defendant seeks a reduction of the minimum sentence imposed by the trial court.
The first issue raised by the defendant concerns the testimony of Ronald McEwen, a co-indictee of the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to a robbery charge prior to defendant's trial. In testifying for the defendant, this witness disclaimed any knowledge of the crime and denied any association with the defendant. The prosecution successfully impeached McEwen with regard to his previous plea of guilty to the same crime. When defense counsel, on redirect examination, attempted to elicit the witness' reason for pleading guilty the trial court sustained a general objection to that inquiry. Appellant contends that the denial of the opportunity to rehabilitate the witness after impeachment by prior inconsistent statements was error. We fully agree with appellant's contention. The rule has long been established that where a witness has been impeached by prior inconsistent statements, the opportunity must be given to rehabilitate that witness by asking 'why' the witness made such inconsistent statements. People v. Hicks, 28 Ill.2d 457, 192 N.E.2d 891 (1963); Schusler v. Flectcher, 74 Ill.App.2d 249, 219 N.E.2d 588 (1966). Nor was it necessary for defense counsel to make an offer of proof, as the State has argued, since an offer of proof is not required where the question propounded shows the purpose and materiality of the evidence sought. People v. Moretti, 6 Ill.2d 494, 129 N.E.2d 709 (1965), cert. denied 356 U.S. 947, 78 S.Ct. 794, 2 L.Ed.2d 822.
However, this court considers such to be harmless error, not warranting a reversal of the conviction. We find McEwen's testimony could have no reasonable effect upon the jury's finding the defendant guilty. Where errors complained of could not reasonably affect the outcome of the trial, the judgment will not be disturbed upon appeal. People v. Armstrong, 22 Ill.2d 420, 176 N.E.2d 755 (1961); People v. Doyle, 76 Ill.App.2d 302, 222 N.E.2d 205 (1966); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
Next, the appellant attempts to challenge the introduction of defendant's prior record for impeachment in rebuttal of defendant's testimony. The argument is that such a procedure, although permitted under two Illinois statutes (Chapter 51, Section 1 and Chapter 38, Section 155--1, Ill.Rev.Stat.1967), served as a denial of due process by imposing a penalty upon a defendant who exercises his right to testify in his own defense.
The State has argued that this issue was waived at the trial. We agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. Veal v. DeRobertis
...Second, the cases cited by Veal do not support his contention that offers of proof were unnecessary in 1971. In People v. Bibbs, 115 Ill.App.2d 200, 253 N.E.2d 179, 181 (1969), cert. denied sub nom., Bibbs v. Illinois, 398 U.S. 967, 90 S.Ct. 2184, 26 L.Ed.2d 552 (1970), the court stated tha......
-
People v. Johnson, 76--55
...A formal offer of proof is unnecessary where the purpose and materiality of the evidence sought are clear (People v. Bibbs, 115 Ill.App.2d 200, 253 N.E.2d 179 (1st Dist. 1969), Cert. denied, 398 U.S. 967, 90 S.Ct. 2184, 26 L.Ed.2d 552 (1970); Cf. United States v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625 (7th......
-
People v. Thibudeaux
...557) unless the purpose and materiality of the evidence sought to be introduced was apparent to the trial court (People v. Bibbs (1969), 115 Ill.App.2d 200, 253 N.E.2d 179, cert. denied (1970), 398 U.S. 967, 90 S.Ct. 2184, 26 L.Ed.2d 552), which was not so in the case before Also, with resp......
-
U.S. ex rel. Bibbs v. Twomey
...less than fifteen nor more than twenty years in the Illinois State Penitentiary. His conviction was affirmed. People v. Bibbs, 115 Ill.App.2d 200, 253 N.E.2d 179 (1st Dist.1969). The Appellate Court of Illinois held that Bibbs should have been permitted to rehabilitate his witness Ronald Mc......