impeachment exception in Illinois

2024In so ruling, the court acknowledged that Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017), cited by defendants, established a limited exception to the no impeachment rule where there is a clear indication that a defendant was convicted based on racial animus.

2024For example, in Pena-Rodriguez, 580 U.S. at 225 , the United States Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the no impeachment rule for evidence that the verdict was motivated by racial bias.

2014Id. ¶ 50 The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and extended the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule to “permit the prosecution to impeach the testimony of all defense witnesses with illegally obtained evidence.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 309 (citing People v. James, 123 Ill. 2d 523 (1988)).

2013Id. ¶ 50 The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling and extended the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule to "permit the prosecution to impeach the testimony of all defense witnesses with illegally obtained evidence." (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 309 (citing People v. James, 123 Ill. 2d 523 (1988)).

2001Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 194-95 .

2001Stover , 89 Ill. 2d at 194-95 .

2026Hernandez-Chirinos, 2024 IL App (2d) 230125, ¶ 67 .

2019Id.

1999The impeachment test adopted in People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510 , 268 N.E.2d 695 (1971), allows the use of evidence of prior convictions for impeachment if the crimes were punishable by death or more than one year of imprisonment or involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment, and the test allows the use of the prior convictions in either case if the court determines that the evidence’s probative value outweighs its prejudicial value.

1999The impeachment test adopted in People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510 , 268 N.E.2d 695 (1971), allows the use of evidence of prior convictions for impeachment if the crimes were punishable by death or more than one year of imprisonment or involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment, and the test allows the use of the prior convictions in either case if the court determines that the evidence’s probative value outweighs its prejudicial value.

1999However, guidelines for determining when the impeachment exception should apply were only recently articulated in Herzog v. Lexington Township, 167 Ill. 2d 288 , 657 N.E.2d 926 (1995).

1999However, guidelines for determining when the impeachment exception should apply were only recently articulated in Herzog v. Lexington Township, 167 Ill. 2d 288 , 657 N.E.2d 926 (1995).

1995(See City of Taylorville v. Stafford (1902), 196 Ill. 288 .) However, the principles necessary for determining when the impeachment exception should apply have not been clearly articulated.

1995(See City of Taylorville v. Stafford (1902), 196 Ill. 288 , 63 *933 N.E. 624.) However, the principles necessary for determining when the impeachment exception should apply have not been clearly articulated.

1992Thus, defendant’s reliance on People v. Yarbrough (1988), 166 Ill.

1992Thus, defendant's reliance on People v. Yarbrough (1988), 166 Ill.

1986App. 3d 227 , 454 N.E.2d 792 .) We believe the trial court properly permitted the impeachment of these defense witnesses.

1982Finfrock v. Eaton Asphalt Co. (1976), 41 Ill.