People v. Schaffer, 4 N.E.3d 176

Defendant Matthew Schaffer was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sexual assault, home invasion, and armed robbery and sentenced to a total of 30 years' imprisonment. The conviction arose from an incident in May 2010 in which the victim V.L. testified she was bound, threatened with a knife and gun, sexually assaulted, and robbed; defendant testified the encounter was consensual and that V.L. paid him with her watch for marijuana.
Physical and forensic evidence: a cut screen, disturbed bedroom, torn clothing, semen on the victim’s T‑shirt matching defendant’s DNA, and the victim’s watch was pawned by defendant and recovered from a pawnshop.
Important credibility issues: V.L.’s physical description of the assailant had inaccuracies; V.L. declined a sexual assault kit and some hospital counseling; defendant admitted selling marijuana and lied about the provenance of the pawned watch.
During defendant’s testimony, the prosecutor repeatedly asked defendant whether other witnesses (V.L. and two detectives) were "making that up" or lying — i.e., to assess the veracity of adverse witnesses — despite repeated objections and some sustained rulings by the trial court.
The jury sent notes indicating prolonged, divided deliberations; the court refused to declare a mistrial and directed continued deliberations before a guilty verdict was returned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor improperly asked the defendant to comment on other witnesses’ credibility (e.g., whether they made things up or lied).	Questions were proper impeachment or aimed to expose inconsistencies and let defendant explain.	Such questions improperly intrude on the jury’s exclusive role to determine witness credibility and demean the defendant.	The court held the questioning was improper and designed to demean the defendant.
Whether the improper questioning was harmless given the evidence.	Error, if any, was harmless because there was strong evidence supporting guilt.	The evidence was closely balanced; credibility was the central issue, so error was prejudicial.	The court held the evidence was closely balanced and the error was not harmless; reversal required.
Whether the trial court’s intermittent sustaining of objections and rulings (e.g., forbidding the word "lying") cured any prejudice.	The court’s rulings and admonitions were sufficient to cure any prejudice.	Sustaining some objections and limiting wording was insufficient given repeated improper questioning.	The court held the curative rulings were insufficient to remove the prejudice.

People v. Young, 347 Ill. App. 3d 909 (2004) (prosecutor may not ask a witness to opine on another witness’s truthfulness; error reversible when evidence is closely balanced)
People v. Turner, 128 Ill. 2d 540 (1989) (cross‑examination about other witnesses may be permissible where defendant must explain his story in light of overwhelming, conflicting evidence)
People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill. 2d 235 (1989) (recognizes general rule against asking a witness to assess another’s veracity but permits limited questioning in certain contexts involving coerced confessions)
People v. Baugh, 358 Ill. App. 3d 718 (2005) (single improper question asking whether an officer was "making that up" may be harmless where limited and the evidence against defendant is strong)
People v. Harris, 228 Ill. App. 3d 204 (1992) (sustaining an objection and instructing the jury to disregard an improper prosecutorial statement may be insufficient to cure prejudice)