People v. Paradise
| Decision Date | 22 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37809,37809 |
| Citation | 30 Ill.2d 381,196 N.E.2d 689 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Eugene PARADISE, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Maurice Scott, Jr., and Lucas Clarkston, and McCoy, Ming & Leighton, Chicago (George N. Leighton, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for defendant in error.
A jury in the criminal court of Cook County found defendant, Eugene Paradise, guilty of the crimes of unlawfully selling, possessing and dispensing narcotic drugs. The court sentenced defendant to the penitentiary for a term of 20 years to life for the unlawful sale, 30 years to life for the unlawful possession, and 30 years to life for the unlawful dispensing. A writ of error has been issued to review the convictions.
Joseph Johnson, a Chicago police officer, testified concerning a controlled sale of narcotics from defendant to David Holiday, a user of narcotics. His testimony reveals that the usual procedure was followed in making the controlled sale. The informer, Holiday, was searched for narcotics, given money (the serial numbers of which were recorded) and taken to defendant's home. The defendant and informer were observed as the hand of each met that of the other. The informer then returned to the police with capsules containing narcotics and defendant was apprehended and found to have the marked money given to the informer. Most of Johnson's testimony was corroborated by that of officers Washington and Rathel.
The informer was made a court's witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. He insisted that he did not know anything about the charges made against defendant. The People then produced a number of witnesses who, the defendant concedes, thoroughly impeached the credibility of Holiday. He argues, nevertheless, that the trial court erred in allowing the People to get before the jury a number of incriminating and highly prejudicial hearsay statements made by Holiday.
Assistant State's Attorney Levy testified that Holiday told him that the police officers searched him and gave him marked money, that he was taken to defendant's home, that he gave defendant the marked money and defendant gave him four capsules and that he gave the capsules to the police. Officer Washington narrated a similar account of the sale as told by Holiday to assistant State's Attorney Benz. Officer Johnson testified that Holiday said he usually buys 4 capsules for $6 from defendant and then narrated the details of the sale as told by Holiday to Benz. Officer Rathel narrated for a third time the conversation between Holiday and Benz.
This court has consistently held that evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a witness is admissible to impeach his credibility. (People v. Morgan, 28 Ill.2d 55, 190 N.E.2d 755; People v. Moses, 11 Ill.2d 84, 142 N.E.2d 1; People v. Biloche, 414 Ill. 504, 112 N.E.2d 162; People v. Smith, 391 Ill. 172, 62 N.E.2d 669; People v. Gleitsmann, 361 Ill. 165, 197 N.E. 557; People v. Romano, 337 Ill. 300, 169 N.E. 182; People v. Graves, 331 Ill. 268, 162 N.E. 839; People v. Popovich, 295 Ill. 491, 129 N.E. 161.) The admission of such evidence is premised on the fact that its exclusion would deprive the party seeking to use it of his opportunity to exhibit the truth and in leaving him the prey of a hostile witness. (3 Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed. sec. 903.) It must be recognized, however, that in criminal cases these extrajudicial statements are often highly incriminating and are usually made outside the presence of the defendant. To give these statements substantive value would allow an accused to be convicted on extrajudicial statements of witnesses-a practice that runs counter to the notions of fairness on which our legal system is founded. (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103.) Therefore, prior self contradictions are not to be treated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bailey
...inconsistent statements used solely to determine credibility and they might afford such testimony substantive value. People v. Paradise, 30 Ill.2d 381, 384, 196 N.E.2d 689. Here, Barksdale's own admission of prior statements inconsistent with his trial testimony seriously detracted from his......
-
People v. Bonds, 1-07-1629.
...credibility, rather than substantively. Cruz, 162 Ill.2d at 364, 205 Ill.Dec. 345, 643 N.E.2d at 660; see People v. Paradise, 30 Ill.2d 381, 384, 196 N.E.2d 689, 691 (1964) (discussing the challenge to jurors to differentiate between impeachment of credibility and substantive evidence when ......
-
People v. Cruz
...credibility and may afford such testimony substantive value. (See Bailey, 60 Ill.2d at 43, 322 N.E.2d 804, citing People v. Paradise (1964), 30 Ill.2d 381, 384, 196 N.E.2d 689.) Consequently, " '[t]his court has repeatedly disapproved prosecutorial efforts to impart substantive character to......
-
People v. Myers
... ... 'If a jury is not to be trusted to evaluate hearsay evidence properly, it may be doubted that it could consider it for one purpose but avoid being influenced by it for another purpose.' (133 A.L.R. 1454, 1466.).' (See also People v. Paradise, 30 Ill.2d 381, 384, 196 N.E.2d 689.) On the other hand the reasons underlying an opinion are usually more persuasive than the opinion itself. Cleary, Handbook of Evidence, sec. 11.4 (2d ed. 1963.) ... The defendant has cited People v. Cartier, 51 Cal.2d 590, 335 P.2d 114, for ... ...