People v. Lewis, 2017 IL App (4th) 150124

Background

Defendant Travis E. Lewis was tried for aggravated battery (allegedly choking Valisa Byndum) after an October 17, 2014 incident; a jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
Byndum testified that Lewis reached around Rachel Simmons and choked her, obstructing breathing for a couple of seconds; police officer Prosser responded and prepared a report.
Defense witnesses (including Lewis, Hailey, and Rachel) testified that Lewis did not choke Byndum; Rachel denied telling Prosser that Lewis choked Byndum twice.
On rebuttal, Officer Prosser testified (without objection) that Rachel told him Lewis "grabbed [Byndum] twice around the neck," along with other details of the confrontation.
On appeal Lewis argued (1) the trial court improperly admitted Rachel’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence in violation of section 115-10.1, and (2) the prosecution impermissibly vouched for Byndum during closing; he also sought application of presentence credit against fines.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejected the section 115-10.1 argument, found impeachment procedure was mishandled (open-ended questioning) but not reversible error, rejected the vouching claim, and remanded to apply a $100 presentence credit to fines.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Lewis)	Held
Whether section 115-10.1 was violated by admission of Rachel’s prior inconsistent statement	Section 115-10.1 does not apply because Rachel was a defense witness; the State properly impeached her with an oral inconsistent statement and completed impeachment by calling Prosser	Trial court allowed a prior inconsistent statement in as substantive evidence under 115-10.1, violating foundational requirements	Reversed claim: 115-10.1 inapplicable — this was ordinary impeachment of an opposing witness; no substantive-admission error under that statute
Whether the State improperly completed impeachment (procedure used)	Completed impeachment by calling Officer Prosser to rebut Rachel’s denial	State used improper, open-ended questioning of Prosser, eliciting hearsay and different wording ("grabbed" vs "choked"), so impeachment was not properly completed	Court found the State used improper procedure (should have used leading yes/no question); error noted but not reversible under facts presented
Whether prosecutor impermissibly vouched for witness credibility in closing argument	Closing argued Byndum’s credibility based on evidence and motives; remarks fell within permissible argument about witness credibility	Statements impermissibly vouched for Byndum and prejudiced defendant	Court held statements did not amount to impermissible vouching; remarks were proper argument based on evidence and inferences
Application of presentence custody credit against fines	State conceded defendant entitled to credit and asked for remand to recalculate total credit	Defendant sought $100 credit applied to fines	Court accepted concession, remanded to amend sentencing judgment to reflect the $100 credit applied to specified fines

Key Cases Cited

People v. Popovich, 295 Ill. 491 (1920) (prior inconsistent out-of-court statements are admissible for impeachment, not as substantive proof)
People v. Williams, 204 Ill. 2d 191 (2003) (party may not impeach a defense witness on cross with a prior inconsistent statement unless extrinsic evidence will be used to prove the statement if denied)
People v. Cruz, 162 Ill. 2d 314 (1994) (discussing §115-10.1 and purpose to address turncoat witnesses)
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co. v. Lawlor, 229 Ill. 621 (1907) (impeaching witness should be asked about the specific statement with a yes/no question; improper to elicit entire conversation)
People v. Virgin, 302 Ill. App. 3d 438 (1998) (prior inconsistent statements admitted for impeachment only)
People v. Suastegui, 374 Ill. App. 3d 635 (2007) (definition and boundaries of substantive evidence vs. impeachment)