People v. Lewis
2017 IL App (4th) 150124
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Travis E. Lewis was charged with aggravated battery for allegedly choking Valisa Byndum on October 17, 2014; a jury convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.
- Byndum testified that Lewis grabbed her neck, obstructing her breathing for a couple of seconds; police officer Prosser took statements at the scene and prepared a report.
- Defense evidence: Lewis denied choking Byndum, claimed he took her phone to delete messages, and witnesses (Rachel, Hailey) generally testified that they saw pushing/swatting but not choking.
- On cross-examination the State asked defense witness Rachel whether she told Officer Prosser that Lewis “choked” Byndum twice; Rachel denied remembering. The State then called Prosser in rebuttal, and he recounted Rachel saying Lewis “grabbed” Byndum twice around the neck and other surrounding details. No contemporaneous objection was made to Prosser’s rebuttal testimony.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) improper introduction of a prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence in violation of section 115-10.1, (2) prosecutorial vouching in closing argument, and (3) entitlement to a $100 presentence credit against fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State improperly introduced Rachel’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence under 725 ILCS 5/115-10.1 | The State contends it properly impeached a defense witness and completed impeachment via Prosser’s rebuttal testimony | Lewis contends Rachel’s prior inconsistent statement was admitted substantively in violation of §115-10.1 foundational rules | Court: §115-10.1 does not apply; this was ordinary impeachment of a defense witness. However the prosecutor used improper procedure (open-ended questioning) when completing impeachment and elicited collateral hearsay beyond the limited prior inconsistent statement. The error did not require reversal. |
| Whether Prosser’s rebuttal testimony (relating Rachel’s account) converted impeachment into substantive hearsay | State argues rebuttal testimony was proper to complete impeachment and fell within impeachment bounds | Lewis argues Prosser’s narrative introduced inadmissible hearsay and substantive evidence (e.g., defendant “grabbed” neck; other details) | Court: Much of Prosser’s narrative was inadmissible hearsay; proper completion of impeachment requires narrow foundation and leading yes/no questions; the State erred in technique but the procedure did not compel reversal. |
| Whether prosecutor impermissibly vouched for witness credibility in closing | State argues closing improperly but permissibly argued witness credibility based on evidence and inferences | Lewis claims prosecutor vouched for Byndum and invoked belief of State | Court: Comments were argument that Byndum was believable based on evidence and motive (proper); no reversible error. |
| Whether defendant is entitled to $100 presentence credit against fines | State concedes credit due; asks remand to clarify total credit calculation | Lewis seeks application of $100 credit to his fines | Court: Affirmed conviction/sentence; remanded for amended sentencing judgment to apply $100 credit to specified fines (trial court to recalculate as needed). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Popovich, 295 Ill. 491 (describing impeachment by prior out-of-court statements as competent for impeachment)
- People v. Williams, 204 Ill. 2d 191 (2003) (requiring good-faith basis and ability to complete impeachment with extrinsic evidence)
- Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. Co. v. Lawlor, 229 Ill. 621 (1907) (impeaching witness may be asked whether prior statement was made; improper to elicit entire conversation)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 138 Ill. 612 (1891) (limit extrinsic evidence to specific statements involved in contradiction)
- People v. Thomas, 354 Ill. App. 3d 868 (2004) (prior inconsistent statements generally admissible only for impeachment)