People v. Rehbein
| Decision Date | 04 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 50216,50216 |
| Citation | 24 Ill.Dec. 835,386 N.E.2d 39,74 Ill.2d 435 |
| Parties | , 24 Ill.Dec. 835 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. George REHBEIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Page 39
v.
George REHBEIN, Appellant.
[74 Ill.2d 436] Ralph Ruebner, James Geis, Deputy State App. Defenders, and Kathy M. Morris, Asst. State App. Defender, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., and Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (Donald B. Mackay, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee T. Hettinger, Iris E. Sholder, and Mary C. Shropshire, [74 Ill.2d 437] Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
RYAN, Justice:
George Rehbein was convicted of the offenses of deviate sexual assault and unlawful restraint (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, pars. 11-3, 10-3) by a jury in Cook County in February 1976. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. (54 Ill.App.3d 93, 11 Ill.Dec. 763, 369 N.E.2d 190.) That court held that the prosecution had erred in its cross-examination by commenting on the accused's silence when he had been interrogated by the police but held that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reach the issue of harmless error. The issue we decide is whether a prosecutor's alleged reference to pretrial silence during cross-examination, in the context of
Page 40
[24 Ill.Dec. 836] clearly proper impeachment by contradictory statements, was an impermissible comment on constitutionally protected silence. We hold that the cross-examination in this case was not a comment on constitutionally protected silence and affirm the appellate court.At trial, the complainant testified she was sexually assaulted and kidnapped on a rainy morning in August of 1975. As she waited for a bus, a copper-colored car drove up and the driver, identified as the defendant, waved to her. Thinking the driver was her neighbor, the complainant entered the car; immediately realizing she was mistaken, she told the driver she did not need a ride. The driver disregarded this statement and drove to a secluded area under a viaduct. The complainant attempted escape but failed. She was then threatened, disrobed, and sexually assaulted. The driver had no weapon. After further threats, complainant told the driver that she lived alone and that he could do anything he wanted to her at her house if he did not hurt her; the driver accepted this offer and drove toward the woman's house. At a red light she jumped from [74 Ill.2d 438] the car and screamed; the driver held her arm, hit her, and then threw her purse out of the car. She noted the car's license plate.
A police officer testified regarding two conversations he had with the defendant on the morning of the assault. One conversation was by phone; the other, face to face. The officer phoned the defendant, identified himself, and explained that the license plate registered to defendant's car had become the subject of an investigation. The officer asked the defendant about the license plates and the defendant said the plates were on a blue Buick that was in his garage, and inoperable and undriven for some time. In response to another question the defendant said he had been home all night. The officer subsequently went to defendant's house, explained his purpose again, and asked to see the car, since the defendant's description of the car did not fit the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lupfer v. State
... ... Doyle, 426 U.S. at 620 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. at 2246 n. 11, 49 L.Ed.2d at 99 n. 11; 8 see People v. Rehbein, 74 Ill.2d 435, 24 Ill.Dec. 835, 386 N.E.2d 39, 42 (1978) (referring to this footnote as an exception to the strict ban on reference to ... ...
-
People v. Hoskins
... ... (The State acknowledges here that it waived these points by not arguing them at the hearing.) This court many times considers questions that a party has waived. (See People v. Myles (1981), 86 Ill.2d 260, 271, 55 Ill.Dec. 939, 427 N.E.2d 59; People v. Rehbein (1978), 74 Ill.2d 435, 439, 24 Ill.Dec. 835, 386 N.E.2d 39.) The party who waived the question is bound by his waiver, but the court, which has the responsibility of reaching a just decision, understandably is not. "However, the rule of waiver is a limitation on the parties and not on the ... ...
-
People v. Graves
... ... As to the subject matter of his statements, the defendant has not remained silent at all." 447 U.S. at 408, 100 S.Ct. at 2182 ... The Illinois Supreme Court is in accord. In People v. Rehbein (1978), 74 Ill.2d 435, 24 Ill.Dec. 835, 386 N.E.2d 39, cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 2843, 61 L.Ed.2d 287, where defendant claimed that the prosecutor had improperly commented on constitutionally protected silence, it was noted: ... "In the sense that reference was made to the fact that ... ...
-
People v. Boston
... ... If the defendant testifies at trial to an exculpatory version of events and also claims to have told the police the same version upon arrest, then the State may impeach him with evidence that he did not do so. Doyle , 426 U.S. at 619 n.11, 96 S.Ct. 2240 ; People v. Rehbein , 74 Ill. 2d 435, 441-42, 24 Ill.Dec. 835, 386 N.E.2d 39 (1978). Similarly, if a defendant's exculpatory testimony at trial is manifestly inconsistent with voluntary statements he made after his arrest, then comment or evidence about his failure to give the same statement at that time does not ... ...