*1 CRANWILL, R. DONAHUE et Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES JACK Defendants-Appellees. District No. 3 — 83—0796
Third 10, 1985. Rehearing denied June April filed BARRY, J., dissenting. Kellstedt, appellant. for Heights,
James P. of Peoria Mueller, Peoria, Jr., appellees. for Cassidy & Cassidy, John E. of the court: opinion delivered JUSTICE STOUDER ar- for false Cranwill, damages for Plaintiff, complaint Jack prosecution malicious privacy, imprisonment, rest and false invasion Donahue, defendants, sheriff James process against and abuse of in the After deputy. and Patrick County, circuit court of Tazewell verdict was returned favor County jury of defendants. well-traveled cause of action when
was arrested partner charged Landrith and his now-deceased driving under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff was taken tests, given passed. sheriff’s office and two which he breathalyzer so, citation, and plain the sheriff’s issued an arrest department *2 court, tiff in its had to bond. This action Federal worked post and, in v. Dona following holding into State court our Cranwill way 968, 426 N.E.2d that the Federal deci (1981), App. hue 99 Ill. action present sion was not a to the action nor was present bar time-barred, the instant case went to trial. finally reference, contends the defendants’ continued appeal, plaintiff
On
Landrith; the
prepared by
accept-
over
to an arrest
objection,
evidence;
the occur-
ance
of the
in
and
and
denial
prejudi-
into the
room were
finding way
jury
rence of the
its
report’s
if the circumstances
surrounding
cial. Defendants assert that even
error,
further,
it
prejudicial
constitute
it is not
and
police report
into evidence.
police report
would not have been error to admit
sur-
on
is whether the circumstances
principal
appeal
issue
the trial
during
prejudicial
the use of the
rounding
police report
case in chief.
plaintiff’s
police report
held that a
Elinois courts have
testimony,
in
of witness’
not admissible
corroboration
revers
be considered
mere
such
exhibit
175
(Johnson
error.
v. Plodzien
ible
T.
560;
Corp. (1970),
v. F. &
N.E.2d
762, 279
Ill.
v.
3
Holley
Jacobs
is that police
this line of cases
186.)
theory
N.E.2d
behind
or state conclusions.
are in the nature of
Furthermore,
exhibits
173.)
to take
evidence, it
error to
permit
in
are not admitted
Holcomb
(People
them to the
trial, however, constitute
Not all errors committed
N.E.2d
errors
are prejudicial
those
Only
for reversal.
grounds
v. Bass
are reversible. Gertz
complaining party
of the
rights
180,
For of the circuit court of judgment reversed, County this cause is remanded for further consistent with views proceedings expressed herein. and remanded.
Reversed J.,
SCOTT, concurs. BARRY,
JUSTICE dissenting: In my dissent. opinion, circumstances defend *3 ants’ use of the arrest did not constitute report prejudicial error in cases The cited the for the by majority general proscription against admitting police accident reports (Johnson Plodzien 175 N.E.2d & T. Corp. v. F. 359) 260 N.E.2d are to the sit inapposite uation presented here.
Police accident reports are excluded the specifically from business record exception hearsay (94 rule in Illinois Ill. R. 236(b)). In the lawsuit, case of an accident a police the fact that investigation re port is is rarely made of any relevance issues to decided by be the The a signed introduction of an report by officer re merely citing whatever witnesses have to about the say incident hearsay within hearsay properly rejected when offered to bolster the of the credibility party advocating admission of the at trial. report of the rule is that judge-made extension the mere attempt to introduce a report accident be police may reversible error. seem- harsh ingly supreme derivative of the court rule a recognizes greater danger form posed by particular this of than hearsay evidence wou'd be the case other hearsay documents. The obvious reason for the unique pertaining rules to accident police merely t\..t conclusions, nature
they hearsay by very and state but that they overpersuade are clothed with an aura of and tend to authority the jurors investigat- facts taken down the officer by more to ing an accident are credible than the version testified at report. the the admission of the by party opposing Nonetheless, to of the rules exclusion be found exceptions may the an officer’s are recorded and offi first-hand observations cer’s at trial to report clarify testimony. offered police may 254 N.E.2d A be report Lake (City Crystal used to refresh the officer’s recollection of v. Nelson re 239) may be the to exception into evidence under recollection record” “past ceived laid (of v. Rotkvich if foundation is a hearsay, Noumoff 107). report is the fact that the it, significance I see of particular As of analysis Fair an arrest, this of as to accident. opposed case was excep- evidentiary rules the rationale the underlying in this case tions report illustrate introduction of arrest why In particular, not be characterized as mechanically prejudicial. error in the mere finding attempt rule reversible no to the arrest accident finds police justifiable application It case did out of an accident. here. This not arise port proffered issue was Landrith. At by arose out arrest defendant events related directly whether the arrest itself and officers. that arrest initiated defendant wrongfully a nar- Landrith and contained prepared The arrest officers Landrith rative of the direct description observations Righi testimony at the time in-court arrest. Landrith’s recited same matters contained in the substantially the arrest fact that was in existence and had been fac- in the usual course of business was relevant i.e., whether jury’s presented tual issues determination — reason to against proceeded defendant officers an offense. that he had committed believe or to admit the decision circumstances, I that these believe Under if judge. within the discretion of refuse upon excluded properly *4 record, the fact of its existence it before the as a business place discre- judge’s I find no trial was admissible abuse view the manner my of the exhibit. refusing By tion in admission per not defense counsel at handled showing prejudice. has made no clear se prejudicial, Next, I that error is when an exhibit dispute prop- do committed However, refused admission finds its the cir- erly cumstances the incident in this case convince me there was mistake, that it ap- that the mistake was inadvertent and was resolved propriately plaintiff. Very soon after deliberate, tired to a note sent to Judge reporting Yontz sent ruling. been into room the court’s despite Judge Yontz directed the bailiff remove the exhibit from the returned, and this was done. After the Judge verdict was Yontz foreman, interviewed the Louis Lowery, any determine whether had, fact, read the arrest jurors said that none Lowery basis, had. On this the trial court found that the ex- mishandling of the hibit was harmless. In my opinion, the situation was remedied adequately trial court.
While the error-free, Thus, was not it was fair. constitutional mandate is satisfied. In my opinion, the trial court properly trial, denied motion for a new and the case should be put rest. would affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County. al., PEGGY M. Plaintiffs-Appellees, JEFFERS et WEINGER, v. JESSE M. M.D., et Defendants-Appellants.
Third District No. 3-84-0233 March