text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAYNE RINALDI, Defendant-Appellant.
    Second District
    No. 2—87—0395
    Opinion filed February 1, 1989.

      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County; the Hon. John E. Sype, Judge, presiding.
    G. Joseph Weller, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, and Daniel D. Yuhas, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
    Paul A. Logli, State’s Attorney, of Rockford (William L. Browers, Robert J. Biderman, and Linda Cullom, all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE McLAREN

delivered the opinion of the court:

After a jury trial, defendant, Shayne Rinaldi, was convicted of four counts of aggravated battery. Count I was premised on bodily harm inflicted on William E. Jackson while using a deadly weapon (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(bXl)), and count II was premised on causing great bodily harm to William E. Jackson (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(a)). Similarly, count III was based on bodily harm to Stephen L. Jackson while using a deadly weapon (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(bXl)), and count IV was based on great bodily harm to Stephen L. Jackson (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12 — 4(a)). On April 13, 1987, the trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent two-year terms of imprisonment for counts I and III and imposed no sentence for counts II and IV. In addition, the trial court imposed a fine of $500 to be paid into the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund pursuant to section 10 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 510).

On appeal, defendant raises four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce testimony which implied that the defendant was involved in crimes unrelated to the charges of aggravated battery; (2) whether two of the convictions of aggravated battery must be vacated because they arose from a single act; (3) whether the $500 fine was properly imposed; and (4) whether defendant was entitled to credit against his term of imprisonment for the time spent in custody prior to his convictions. We affirm as modified and remand the cause with directions.

We summarize only the facts pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.

At trial, William Jackson testified that, on July 16, 1986, at approximately 10:30 p.m., he returned to his Rockford residence after an evening out with his wife, Peggy, and his son, Stephen. Upon his arrival home, William went to get his mail and saw an automobile that was approaching with its lights off. Realizing that he was right in the automobile’s path, he jumped back onto the sidewalk. He described the vehicle that he saw as an old, light-colored, four-door model with a loud muffler. After this incident, William returned to his home and prepared to retire for the evening. A short time later, however, he heard noises in his driveway. He left his house to investigate these sounds and shortly thereafter was beaten by two attackers.

William Jackson recalled being struck by “a long metal object” which was about “18 inches to two feet” in length. The weapon was later identified as a pair of martial arts weapons called “numchucks.” In court, William Jackson identified the defendant as one of the individuals who attacked him on the night in question. Jackson stated that the area where the attacks occurred was illuminated by two outdoor garage lights.

According to William Jackson, the assault on him continued until his son joined the fray. William sustained a wound above his left ear which cut through the skin and muscle, and another cut above that one which was just opened up slightly and bleeding. He was bruised on his right arm. His injuries later required hospitalization, and he received stitches.

The scuffle continued for a few moments, and then the two assailants started running through the backyard, pursued by William Jackson and his son, Stephen. William saw them get into an automobile which was the same vehicle he had seen earlier that evening.

After the attackers had left, William Jackson returned home and called the police. Later that night, a search of the area produced the numchucks which had been dropped by one of the assailants.

Stephen Jackson corroborated his father’s testimony concerning the events that occurred that evening. During his testimony, Stephen Jackson also identified Shayne Rinaldi as one of the individuals who attacked his father. Stephen also received injuries, having been struck by the numchucks when he came to his father’s assistance. The injuries sustained by Stephen Jackson also required hospital treatment.

William and Stephen Jackson independently identified the defendant from a photographic lineup at the Rockford police department.

Shayne Rinaldi testified on his own behalf and denied being involved in the assaults on William and Stephen Jackson. The defendant stated that, on July 16, 1986, he had attended a cookout during the early evening hours; later, between 9:30 p.m and midnight, he had gone to a cousin’s home. The defendant stated that, after he left his cousin’s house at approximately midnight, he went to his grandmother’s home, where he remained for the rest of the evening.

The defendant acknowledged that he had once owned a pair of numchucks, but he stated that they were smaller in size than the pair discovered on Jackson’s lawn.

On cross-examination, the defendant was asked if he had ever stopped his car near a Rockford tavern at approximately midnight on July 16,1986; defendant stated that he had not done so.

After this testimony, the State’s rebuttal witness, William Scott, testified that on July 16, 1986, at approximately midnight, he was in the vicinity of the Stadium Lounge Tavern when he observed two individuals enter an automobile that had its engine running and its lights off. In court, Scott identified defendant as one of the individuals he observed entering the vehicle. Scott recalled that the license plate number of this vehicle was 803 186. Earlier at trial, Detective Picarilli had testified that defendant had told him that 803 186 was the license number of his car. The direct examination of Scott continued with the following testimony:

“Q. And what did you do when you got into the Stadium Lounge, what did you first do?
A. I talked to the owner and gave him the piece of paper with the license plate number on it.
Q. Later that evening did you have occasion to see or meet with any police officers in connection with the information you had given to *** the owner?
A. Yes.
MR. DECK [Defense Counsel]: I object.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. The answer is stricken.”

After William Scott had been questioned on cross-examination about what he had observed in the parking lot of the Stadium Lounge, the prosecutor asked the following questions on redirect examination:

“Q. Why did you want to stick around to see what was going on that night?
A. I know the owner of the Stadium Lounge and there have been burglaries of automobiles where they have been broken into and the contents taken from inside the vehicles at their location.
MR. DECK: Judge, I am going to object and ask it be stricken.
THE COURT: This is proper response to the cross-examination, you may continue.
Q. Knowing this information that you have just indicated, why then did you want to stick around to see what was going on?
* * *

A. I was suspicious about a car running with its lights off and when the individuals came from parked cars instead of coming out of an exit and when, to me, they were young individuals not of drinking age, they wouldn’t have been coming out of the tavern and I was suspicious.

MR. DECK: Judge, I object to that, I don’t think this witness’ speculation as to what may have been going on is relevant to this cause.
THE COURT: This subject was broached on cross-examination, the objection is overruled.”

The defendant’s grandmother, Nancy Rinaldi, testified that her grandson arrived at her home at approximately 12:15 a.m. on July 17, 1986.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce testimony which implied that defendant had been involved in crimes unrelated to the charges of aggravated battery for which he was on trial. The State maintains that the evidence did not imply that defendant was involved in burglarizing automobiles. We agree that no evidence was adduced that defendant had committed a burglary; the testimony stopped short of implicating the defendant in other crimes unrelated to the aggravated batteries. Therefore, no error occurred. Even if it is possible to make a weak inference that defendant had been involved in criminal activity near the tavern, the evidence would have been permissible in this case. The general rule is that evidence of offenses other than those for which the defendant is being tried is inadmissible because of the risk of prejudice to the defendant. (People v. Romero (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 325, 330, 362 N.E.2d 288, 290.) However, there are well-established exceptions to the rule. Such evidence is admissible to show motive, intent, identity, absence of mistake, or modus operandi. Evidence of other offenses may be introduced if it tends to identify the accused as the person who committed the crime under investigation and to disprove an alibi. Romero, 66 Ill. 2d at 330, 362 N.E.2d at 290; People v. Harris (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 395, 399, 263 N.E.2d 35, 38.

At trial, no evidence was adduced that a burglary had been committed. The State did not attempt to elaborate or to show defendant’s propensity for crime, but merely introduced evidence sufficient to show the circumstances of the witnesses’ positive identification of the defendant and to show that the defendant’s whereabouts on the evening in question differed from those claimed by defendant. Therefore, the trial court was correct in permitting the testimony to which defendant objected.

Defendant next argues that two of his four convictions should be vacated because each of the aggravated battery convictions based on great bodily harm arose from the same physical act as the aggravated battery convictions based on the use of a deadly weapon. Notwithstanding that the trial court imposed no sentence as to the great bodily harm convictions, we find no basis to vacate those convictions. Multiple convictions are not precluded where offenses arise from multiple acts even though closely related in time and where none of the offenses are, by definition, lesser included offenses. People v. Dixon (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 346, 355, 438 N.E.2d 180, 185; People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566, 363 N.E.2d 838, 845, cert. denied (1977), 434 U.S. 894, 54 L. Ed. 2d 181, 98 S. Ct. 273.

King defined an “act” as any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense; no independent motivation is required to support each conviction. (66 Ill. 2d at 566, 363 N.E.2d at 844-45.) In Dixon, our supreme court determined that where the defendant had struck the victim several times with a club, the separate blows were not one physical act and could support convictions and concurrent sentences for both aggravated battery and mob action. In People v. Williams (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 332, 338-39, 508 N.E.2d 444, 448, we held that the defendant could be properly convicted and sentenced for both armed violence and aggravated battery based on a charge that the defendant committed aggravated battery causing great bodily harm by stabbing the victim and striking her about the face. We determined that such action constituted separate physical acts though closely related, one count alleging an element of the offense not found in the other.

In the present case, defendant’s assault on the victims consisted of multiple acts, each injury constituting an independent offense caused by a separate physical blow. The evidence indicates that William Jackson was struck on the left side of the head, above his ear, on his arms, body, and legs; he also suffered a glancing blow to the top of his head. Stephen Jackson received blows on his right ear; his left ear was punctured, and the pinky finger of his left hand was broken. We conclude that defendant’s convictions on all counts of aggravated battery were proper, and sentences on each count could and should have been imposed. Williams, 155 Ill. App. 3d at 338, 508 N.E.2d at 448; see also People v. Dixon, 91 Ill. 2d at 354-56, 438 N.E.2d at 184-85.

Next, defendant contends that the imposition of a fine of $500 was improper and must be reduced because it is in excess of the fine authorized by statute. We agree in part. Section 10 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 70, par. 510) sets out a schedule of charges to be imposed in conjunction with a conviction for any offense enumerated. We believe that the schedule of statutory charges is mandatory, not directory. The court imposed a fine a portion of which under section 10(b) would be assigned to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund. Contrary to the mandate of the statute, the trial court attempted to assign the entire fine to the fund. The plain language of the statute gives no discretion to the trial court to fix the amount of the charges assigned to the fund. The schedule of charges does not provide for minimum or maximum charges; such provisions are usually found in criminal statutes when the legislative intent is to give trial courts discretion in assessing the penalties. In the absence of any legislative intent to grant the trial court discretion in assessing the charges in this instance, we find that the schedule of charges is mandatory and the trial court had no discretion to assign a charge in excess of $4 for every $40 of fine assessed as provided by the statute. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 70, par. 510(b); see People ex rel. Ward v. Salter (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 612, 615, 192 N.E.2d 882; 1984 Att’y Gen. Op. 72, 76.) Thus, defendant is entitled to a reassessment of his fine consistent with section 10 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 70, par. 510).

Defendant also correctly asserts that he is entitled to credit against his sentence of imprisonment for any time spent in custody prior to the imposition of his sentence. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—7(b); see also People v. Scheib (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 244, 252, 390 N.E.2d 872, 875.) The record indicates that defendant spent time in custody on one day prior to posting bond in the proceeding below. Consequently, we remand the cause for a finding of the applicable time served and issuance of an amended mittimus reflecting the appropriate credit for time served by the defendant.

In view of the foregoing, we affirm the four convictions and remand the cause for sentencing on the two great bodily harm convictions to be served concurrently with the other two convictions; for the reassessment of a fine consistent with this court’s rulings; and, further, for the issuance of an amended mittimus.

The judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is affirmed as modified, and the cause is remanded with directions.

Affirmed as modified; cause remanded with directions.

WOODWARD and LINDBERG, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE LINDBERG

license: Public Domain

text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEORGE GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    Second District
    No. 2—87—1205
    Opinion filed February 1, 1989.

      Mary J. Clark, of Sullivan, Smith, Hauser & Noonan, Ltd., of Waukegan, for appellant.
    Fred L. Foreman, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan (William L. Browers and Martin P. Moltz, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE LINDBERG

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, George Gonzales, appeals from a September 8, 1987, order of the trial court which fixed the amount of restitution he was obligated to pay and from a November 18, 1987, order denying his motion to reconsider the earlier order of restitution. His sole appellate contention is that the trial court’s order of restitution was erroneous because the State failed to adduce proper or sufficient evidence of damages.

On November 3, 1986, the defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the offense of criminal damage to property valued under $300 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 21 — 1(a)) as a result of damage he caused on May 4, 1986, to the hydraulic system of a 1983 Ford tow truck the victim, Michael Hussey, owned. In return for the guilty plea, the State nol-prossed the remaining charges of criminal trespass to land and assault. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 21 — 3(a), 12 — 1(a).) After accepting the guilty plea and entering a judgment of conviction, the court sentenced the defendant to conditional discharge for a period of 12 months with the first 30 days to be served as periodic imprisonment. The court also assessed court costs against the defendant and required him to make restitution in an amount the court would later determine after holding a hearing concerning that matter.

On September 8, 1987, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court below ordered the defendant to pay restitution to Michael Hussey in the amount of $1,166.18. On November 6, 1987, after obtaining leave of court, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider the order of restitution. The court denied that motion on November 18, 1987, and the defendant filed the present notice of appeal on December 18,1987.

At the outset we note that in its appellate brief the State advances two separate arguments in support of its contention that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the current appeal. The crux of one of the State’s jurisdictional arguments is that the defendant failed to file his motion to reconsider the order setting the amount of restitution within 30 days of the court’s order, as section 5 — 8—1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005— 8 — 1(c)) mandates, and, thus, the time for filing the notice of appeal under Supreme Court Rule 606(b) (107 Ill. 2d R. 606(b)) expired 30 days after the entry of the court’s restitution order. Inasmuch as we agree with the State that the appeal is not properly before us for this reason, we will limit our discussion below to this dispositive jurisdictional defect.

Supreme Court Rule 606(a) makes clear that the filing of the notice of appeal is the only jurisdictional step in the perfection of a criminal appeal. (107 Ill. 2d R. 606(a); People v. Carter (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 635, 638, 415 N.E.2d 17, 19.) Rule 606(b) prescribes, with one exception that is not applicable here, that the notice of appeal must be filed in the circuit court no later than 30 days after the entry of the final judgment that forms the basis of the appeal or within 30 days after the court’s entry of the order disposing of a timely motion directed against the judgment. (107 Ill. 2d R. 606(b); People v. Carter, 91 Ill. App. 3d at 638, 415 N.E.2d at 19.) Section 5 — 8—1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections, which took effect on August 21, 1987 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(c))—before the court’s restitution order was filed on September 8, 1987 — expressly provides that “[a] motion to reduce a sentence shall not be considered to have been timely filed unless it is filed with the circuit court clerk within 30 days after the sentence is imposed.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 8—1(c).

It is manifest that a sentence is the final judgment in a criminal case. (People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 23, 51, 464 N.E. 2d 223, 236.) Without a sentence, the judgment is not final, and an appeal may not be taken. (People v. Dixon (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 346, 352, 438 N.E.2d 180, 183.) In the case at bar, the final judgment was entered on September 8, 1987, when the trial court set the amount of restitution. (See, e.g., People v. Biederman (1981), 100 Ill. App. 3d 558, 426 N.E.2d 1225.) Thus, in this case the 30-day period for filing the notice of appeal in accordance with Rule 606(b) began to run on September 8, 1987, when sentencing was completed, or upon the denial of a timely motion to reconsider. See, e.g., People v. Clark (1979), 80 Ill. App. 3d 46, 48, 399 N.E .2d 261, 263-64; Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 606, Historical and Practice Notes, at 92 (Smith-Hurd 1985).

An examination of the record on appeal reveals, in consonance with the State’s assertion, that the defendant filed his motion to reconsider the order of restitution on November 6, 1987, a date which is more than 30 days after the September 8, 1987, order of the trial court. The record before the court in this appeal belies the defendant’s assertion in his reply brief that he filed his motion to reconsider on October 7, 1987. In this respect we emphasize not only that the motion to reconsider is file-stamped November 6, 1987, but also that on November 6, 1987, the trial court gave the defendant leave to file the motion to reconsider.

The instant case is a classic example of why reviewing courts must insist upon compliance with supreme court rules generally and Rules 341(eX6) and (eX7), requiring citation to the record or legal authority for every statement of fact or law, specifically, in briefs. (107 111. 2d Rules 341(eX6), (eX7).) Defendant’s appellate counsel made the bald statement in the reply brief “A Motion to Reconsider was filed on October 7, 1987. Hearing on that Motion to Reconsider was not heard until November 18, 1987, when the court denied the Motion to Reconsider” (emphasis added) without citation to the record for this critical assertion. Indeed, there could be no record citation for this dispositive fact because no such date exists on any document in the record.

Strict adherence to the rules aforesaid allows courts of review to ascertain the integrity of parties’ assertions of fact and law which is essential to the expeditious and accurate determination of appeals. Counsel are admonished to adhere strictly to the supreme court rules for all aspects of appellate procedure. Our supreme court noted in another context that “[a]t the risk of stating the obvious, it should be pointed out that the rules adopted by this court concerning criminal defendants and guilty pleas are in fact rules of procedure and not suggestions. It is incumbent upon counsel and courts alike to follow them.” People v. Wilk (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 93,103, 529 N.E.2d 218.

In light of the fact that (1) the defendant’s motion to reconsider was not timely filed and the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the final order of September 8, 1987, and (2) the defendant has not filed a motion in this court for leave to file a late notice of appeal (107 111. 2d R. 606(c)), the defendant’s appeal is untimely, and we must dismiss it.

The appeal from the orders of the circuit court is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

NASH and DUNN, JJ., concur.


author: JUSTICE McLAREN

text:
    PHINEAS L. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES EDGAR, Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant.
    Second District
    No. 2—88—0484
    Opinion filed February 9, 1989.

      Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz, Solicitor General, and Vincent J. O’Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
    James J. Dombek, of UAW-Chrysler Legal Services Plan, of Belvidere, for appellee.
   JUSTICE McLAREN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Phineas L. Hill, brought this action pursuant to the Administrative Review Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3 — 101 et seq.) to review a decision of defendant, Illinois Secretary of State (Secretary), under the Illinois safety responsibility law (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95V2, par. 7 — 100 et seq.). Defendant found that there existed a reasonable possibility of a civil judgment being entered against plaintiff as the' result of a car accident, and thus defendant suspended plaintiff’s driving privileges absent the filing of a $1,900 bond. The circuit court reversed defendant’s decision as against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant appeals the circuit court’s reversal of defendant’s order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Plaintiff was the uninsured driver of a car of an uninsured owner. He was involved in a car accident in Winnebago County, Illinois. Edward Defendí was the owner and operator of the other car involved in the accident. Defendí had two passengers in the car with him at the time of the accident. Both plaintiff and Defendí filed accident reports with the Department of Transportation (Department) following the accident. Defendí’s report indicates that the accident resulted in between $500 and $1,500 damage to his car. His report also indicates that he sustained neck and back injuries' in the accident; that passenger Ronald Francis sustained head, neck, back, and leg injuries; and that passenger Tina Lancaster sustained head and neck injuries. Plaintiff’s report indicates that there was no damage to his car.

Based on the accident reports, and pursuant to its responsibility under the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95½, par. 7 — 201.3), the Department prepared a certificate of estimated property damage and bodily injury resulting from the accident. The property damage estimate was $1,000; the bodily injury estimate was $900. The Department notified plaintiff that his failure to provide evidence of liability insurance or other means to pay for damages resulting from the accident compelled the Department to certify his name as an uninsured motorist to the Secretary for possible suspension of his driving privileges.

On May 11, 1987, the Secretary issued a notice of suspension. The notice states that a review of the accident file resulted in a preliminary finding that there was a reasonable possibility of a civil judgment in excess of $250 being entered against plaintiff. Plaintiff was required to deposit as security a surety bond, cashier’s check, bank draft, or money order in the amount of $1,900 to prevent suspension of his driver’s license. Plaintiff filed a written request for an administrative hearing to contest the preliminary finding.

An administrative hearing was held on October 8, 1987. Although all interested parties (including Defendí and his two passengers) were given notice, only plaintiff appeared at the hearing. The Secretary entered several exhibits into evidence: the Department’s certificate of estimated property damage and bodily injury; plaintiff’s notice of suspension; plaintiff’s request for an administrative hearing; notice of the hearing; and both accident reports.

At the hearing, plaintiff testified that there had been a collision wherein the front of his car collided with the rear of Defendí’s car. Plaintiff characterized the impact as “very light.” He stated that neither car was damaged and that no one complained of injuries after the accident. The police were not called to the scene. Sometime after the accident, Defendí telephoned plaintiff and gave him an estimate of $350 property damage. Plaintiff met personally with Defendí, and, although he believed that he had not caused any damage, plaintiff made a $100 payment to Defendí. Defendí told him that a $250 balance was still due. Defendí later sent an estimate of damage in the amount of $350 to plaintiff. Plaintiff did not produce any receipts or copies of the estimate at the hearing.

The Secretary found that, based on the evidence and testimony and exhibits, there was a reasonable possibility of a civil judgment being rendered against plaintiff as a result of the accident. Because plaintiff had failed to post security, a license suspension order was' entered against plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the administrative decision, finding that defendant had violated section 1001.250(d) of the regulations on Safety Responsibility Hearings (92 Ill. Adm. Code 1001.250(d) (1987)).

Section 1001.250(d) provides:

“Except for evidence depositions admissible under the law of the State of Illinois, written statements unsubstantiated by oral testimony may not prevail against oral testimony offered on the same issue.” 92 Ill. Adm. Code 1001.250(d) (1987).

The circuit court found that under section 1001.250(d), the oral testimony offered by plaintiff at the hearing must prevail over the written evidence offered by the Secretary; therefore, the decision in favor of the Secretary was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Secretary filed a motion to reconsider; the motion was denied. The Secretary now appeals the circuit court’s reversal of the administrative decision.

The Secretary contends that the circuit court erred in relying upon section 1001.250(d) to reverse the administrative decision because the documentary evidence introduced by the Secretary was substantiated by plaintiff’s own testimony at the hearing. Plaintiff contends that his testimony refuted the evidence of property damage, personal injury, and the amount of damage claimed.

The purpose of a hearing under the Hlinois safety responsibility law is to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a civil judgment could be entered against the respondent for liability arising from an automobile accident. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 7 — 205.) The issues to be determined at such a hearing are:

“(1) The identity of the driver(s) involved in the accident;
(2) The identity of the owner(s) of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident;
(3) The nature and extent of the bodily injury or property damage sustained in the accident;
(4) The determination, based upon the evidence presented, as to whether there is a reasonable possibility of either of the following situations occurring; to wit:
(A) A judgment being rendered against the Respondent for liability resulting from bodily injury occasioned by the accident; or
(B) A judgment being rendered against the Respondent for liability in an amount in excess of the statutory minimum [of $250] resulting from property damage to the property of any one person occasioned by the accident.
(5) Should it be so determined that either of these two factual situations exists, a prima facie case shall be deemed established; and only in the event that a prima facie case, as defined in this paragraph, is established, shall the Respondent have the burden to rebut or overcome said prima facie case.” 92 111. Adm. Code 1001.240 (1987).

The issue on appeal is whether, under the administrative regula- . .tions, the Secretary had established a prima facie case and, if so, whether plaintiff had met the burden of rebutting or overcoming the prima facie case.

The Secretary’s evidence, specifically the Defendí accident report, indicates that there was property damage in excess of the $250 statutory minimum and that there was bodily injury to Defendí and his passengers. Based on this evidence alone, there was a reasonable possibility of a judgment being rendered against plaintiff for property damage and for bodily injury. The Secretary had established a prima facie case which plaintiff had the burden to rebut or overcome.

The remaining question is, therefore, whether plaintiff met this burden.

The administrative regulation correctly relied on by the trial court requires that written statements unsubstantiated by oral testimony may not prevail against oral testimony offered on the same issue. On the issue of property damage, plaintiff testified that Defendí told him the damage to his car was $350, and he testified that he saw an estimate for $350. This oral testimony substantiates the Defendí written report that there was damage to the vehicle. Defendl’s written statement that the damage was between $500 to $1,500, however, was not substantiated and cannot prevail over plaintiff’s testimony on this issue. Plaintiff’s testimony indicated that the damage to the car was, at most, $350 based upon an alleged statement of Defendí as to the extent of damages. Plaintiff made a $100 payment to Defendí, and a $250 balance was due. This testimony does rebut the Secretary’s prima facie case on the possibility of a judgment in excess of $250 for property damage.

However, on the issue of bodily injury, the plaintiff has not successfully rebutted or overcome the Secretary’s case. Plaintiff testified that neither Defendí nor the passengers complained to him of injuries. This testimony does not address whether they were, in fact, injured. The Defendí report indicates that all three suffered some kind of personal injury. Plaintiff’s testimony that they did not complain of injury does not rebut or overcome the Secretary’s prima facie case that there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment being entered against plaintiff for liability resulting from bodily injury occasioned by the accident.

On the issue of bodily injury, the Secretary established a prima facie case which the respondent was unable to rebut; therefore, an order of suspension was properly entered upon the estimated $900 of bodily injury.

The judgment of the circuit court of De Kalb County is affirmed in part and reversed in part; the administrative decision of the Secretary of State is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the Secretary of State for reduction of the bond to $900.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

WOODWARD and LINDBERG, JJ., concur.


author: JUSTICE LINN

text:
    EVELYN JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELDON STEINER et al., Defendants-Appellees (Northwest Hospital, Inc., et al., Defendants).
    First District (4th Division)
    No. 87—3063
    Opinion filed December 22, 1988.
    Rehearing denied February 24, 1989.

      David A. Novoselsky & Associates and Peter F. Zullo, both of Chicago (David A. Novoselsky and Kathleen M. Krist, of counsel), for appellant.
    Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, and Rooks, Pitts & Poust, both of Chicago (Robert Marc Chemers, Michael A. Clarke, David J. Pritchard, and Charles A. Le Moine, of counsel), for appellees.
   JUSTICE LINN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Evelyn Johnson, brought a medical malpractice action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendants, Northwest Hospital, Inc; Arvind Patel, M.D.; Sheldon Steiner, M.D.; Arthur Broder, M.D.; Ralph Cabin, M.D.; Shobha Parikh, M.D.; Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Associates, S.C.; Consultants In Neurology, Ltd.; and unknown medical personnel and employees of Northwest Hospital. Drs. Patel and Steiner each sought and received summary judgment, based on their affidavits accompanying their motions.

Approximately one year later, plaintiff filed a petition for relief from judgment. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1401.) Plaintiff petitioned the trial court to vacate the summary judgments for Patel and Steiner, thereby reinstating them in the action. Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition, contending that the trial court abused its discretion.

We affirm the order of the trial court.

Background

The record shows that on August 29, 1983, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident. She was taken to Northwest Hospital, where she was initially examined and treated in the emergency room by various medical personnel. She was admitted to the hospital and underwent examinations, tests, and treatment for several days, administered by defendants.

Plaintiff alleged that during her stay at Northwest Hospital, X-ray photographs of her were taken. The X rays revealed that plaintiff’s left wrist was fractured. However, defendants failed to treat this injury. On November 11, 1983, plaintiff sought treatment for her left wrist at another hospital. On November 15, 1983, plaintiff underwent surgery to repair the fracture.

Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on August 9, 1985. She named as defendants Northwest Hospital; Parikh; Broder; Cabin; Consultants In Neurology, Ltd., which employed Cabin; Patel; Steiner; Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Associates, S.C., which was Steiner’s solely owned professional corporation; and other unknown medical personnel and hospital employees. Plaintiff alleged essentially that defendants breached their duty of due care owed to her by negligently failing to examine, diagnose, and treat her left wrist. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants’ negligence proximately caused her several injuries. Plaintiff sought damages.

Patel filed a motion for summary judgment on January 14, 1986. In support thereof, he attached to the motion his own affidavit. Patel stated in his affidavit that he did not practice radiology or orthopedics, and that he never examined or treated plaintiff’s left wrist; he was never asked to do so. His treatment of plaintiff focused exclusively on her abdominal injuries. Patel lastly stated that, in his treatment of plaintiff’s abdominal injuries, he acted within the accepted standard of care at all times. In his motion for summary judgment, Patel stated that he was called in as a consultant exclusively regarding plaintiff’s abdominal injuries and that plaintiff was not complaining of that treatment. Patel stated that no genuine issue existed as to any material fact related to him.

On March 5, 1986, the trial court held a hearing on Patel’s motion for summary judgment. The record shows that the court offered to postpone the hearing on the motion, to allow plaintiff an opportunity to depose Patel. Plaintiff declined the offer and the court granted summary judgment for Patel.

Steiner likewise filed a motion for summary judgment on March 19, 1986. In support thereof, he attached to the motion his own affidavit. Steiner stated in his motion and affidavit that Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Associates, S.C., was his solely owned professional corporation and that he did not practice radiology or orthopedics. Further, he never examined or treated plaintiff’s left wrist and he was never asked to do so. He was called in as a consultant exclusively regarding plaintiff’s hypertension and potassium levels, his treatment of plaintiff focused exclusively on those areas, and that plaintiff was not complaining of that treatment. He stated that he acted within the accepted standard of care at all times. Steiner also stated that no genuine issue existed as to any material fact related to him. On May 15, 1986, following a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary judgment for Steiner.

On December 8, 1986, several months after the entry of summary judgments for Patel and Steiner, plaintiff took the discovery deposition of Broder. Additionally, plaintiff deposed Parikh on January 26, 1987, and Cabin on February 19, 1987.

On April 10, 1987, plaintiff petitioned the trial court to vacate the summary judgments for Patel and Steiner. Plaintiff asserted in the petition that she accepted the affidavits of Patel and Steiner as true and that she had no reason to doubt their truth. Thus, she did not file any counteraffidavits or investigate their statements. In the depositions of Parikh and Cabin, however, plaintiff discovered new evidence showing that Patel and Steiner had the overall responsibility for her care and treatment. Plaintiff asserted not only that the affidavits of Patel and Steiner contradicted the depositions of Parikh and Cabin, but also that the affidavits of Patel and Steiner were false, misleading, and perjurious. Plaintiff asserted that she exercised due diligence in discovering the new evidence, and that had the trial court known of the new evidence, it would not have granted Patel and Steiner summary judgment.

On June 9, 1987, Steiner moved to dismiss plaintiff’s petition to vacate. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 615.) Patel did likewise on July 23, 1987. They claimed essentially that plaintiff’s petition to vacate did not state a cause of action because plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to discover the new evidence, both before and after the entry of summary judgment; to establish that the trial court would have reached a different result had it known of the new evidence; and to state a meritorious cause of action against them. Patel and Steiner also claimed that plaintiff failed to establish that their affidavits were false, misleading and peijurious and that plaintiff was attempting to relitigate the same issue decided by the trial court in granting them summary judgment.

On September 1, 1987, the trial court denied Patel’s and Steiner’s motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff’s petition stated a cause of action. However, the court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in discovering the evidence before it entered summary judgment for Patel and Steiner. Plaintiff appeals.

Opinion

Courts have explained the prerequisites of a petition for relief from judgment in many cases over the years; the applicable legal principles are quite settled. A trial court cannot review its own judgment after the expiration of 30 days from the date of entry. (Brockmeyer v. Duncan (1960), 18 Ill. 2d 502, 505, 165 N.E.2d 294, 296.) However, section 2 — 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a procedure for obtaining relief from final orders and judgments after 30 days from the date of entry. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1401.) It was designed to substitute a simple remedy for the relief previously available through various common law writs. The function of a section 2 — 1401 petition is to bring before the court that rendered a judgment facts not appearing of record which, if known to the court at the time judgment was entered, would have prevented its rendition. Petrauskas v. Motejunas (1971), 133 Ill. App. 2d 293, 296, 272 N.E.2d 805, 807-08.

A section 2 — 1401 proceeding is a new action separate and apart from the proceeding in which the judgment complained of was entered. A section 2 — 1401 petitioner bears the burden to allege and prove facts sufficient to justify relief. (Petrauskas, 133 Ill. App. 2d at 296, 272 N.E.2d at 808.) Although courts apply the provision with the aim of achieving justice, section 2 — 1401 was never intended to give a litigant a new opportunity to do that which should have been done in an earlier proceeding; the section was never intended to relieve a litigant of the consequences of his mistake or negligence. Malek v. Lederle Laboratories (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 493, 497, 504 N.E.2d 893, 895.

Based on the foregoing, a section 2 — 1401 petitioner must allege and prove: (1) that if the ground for relief had been known at the time judgment was entered, it would have prevented the entry of judgment against him; and (2) that failure to discover and present the ground for relief was not the result of his own lack of diligence. (Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co. (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 273, 283, 433 N.E.2d 253, 257.) Specifically, to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence, it is quite settled that the evidence must be such as could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of or prior to the entry of the judgment. Meudt v. Travelers Insurance Co. (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 286, 294, 372 N.E.2d 902, 908; Ulrich v. Glyptis (1967), 79 Ill. App. 2d 447, 453-54, 224 N.E.2d 581, 585.

Lastly, we noted earlier that Patel and Steiner did not answer plaintiff’s petition. For purposes of a section 2 — 1401 petition, as in other pleadings, failure to answer the well-pled allegations in the petition constitutes an admission. Therefore, we must accept as true plaintiff’s well-pled allegations, as did the trial court, and the only issue before this court is whether the petition adequately sets forth sufficient facts to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition. (See Tsuetaki v. Novicky (1983), 158 Ill. App. 3d 505, 511, 509 N.E.2d 1019, 1024.) The petition is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; a court of review will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Meudt, 57 Ill. App. 3d at 294, 372 N.E.2d at 908.

In the case at bar, we conclude that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts showing that she met the due diligence requirement of a section 2 — 1401 petition. The allegedly new evidence that plaintiff presents, i.e., the depositions of Parikh and Cabin, is simply not new. Parikh and Cabin were known and available to plaintiff prior to the time of the summary judgments for Patel and Steiner. Thus, plaintiff could reasonably have obtained their depositions before the entry of the judgments. This fact, standing alone, would require us to affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition.

Plaintiff, however, contends that she exercised due diligence in presenting the evidence from Parikh and Cabin. Plaintiff alleged in her section 2 — 1401 petition not only that the affidavits of Patel and Steiner contradicted the depositions of Parikh and Cabin, but also that the affidavits of Patel and Steiner were false, misleading, and perjurious. Plaintiff further alleged that their lies prevented her from deposing Parikh and Cabin earlier. Plaintiff is correct that the fraudulent concealment of evidence is a factor in determining whether a section 2 — 1401 petitioner exercised due diligence in discovering and presenting the ground for relief. (Malek, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 497-98, 504 N.E.2d at 895-96.) Courts reason that when an opponent suppresses information, as to prevent the inquirer from realizing what has occurred, the failure to discover the information is the result of the opponent’s fault and not the inquirer’s negligence. 152 Ill. App. 3d at 499, 504 N.E.2d at 897, quoting Ostendorf, 89 Ill. 2d at 284-85, 433 N.E.2d at 258.

We reject plaintiff’s contention. Plaintiff’s argument contains a crucial assumption, which she asserted in her petition, maintained in her appellate brief, and stressed at oral argument. Plaintiff assumes that because Patel and Steiner swore that they played a limited role in her care and treatment, and because Parikh and Cabin swore that Patel and Steiner had the overall responsibility for her care and treatment, Patel and Steiner, therefore, must be liars and their affidavits must be perjurious.

This assumption is fallacious and fatal to her argument. It is quite settled that a judgment is not set aside simply because the losing party comes into court and boldly asserts that it was premised on false facts. (Filosa v. Pecora (1974), 18 Ill. App. 3d 123, 128, 309 N.E.2d 356, 360.) Where a section 2 — 1401 petition seeks relief based upon alleged perjured testimony, it must be shown by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that the testimony was not only false, but that it was willfully and purposely falsely given. David v. Retire ment Board (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 221, 225, 280 N.E.2d 735, 738.

Plaintiff’s section 2 — 1401 petition falls far short of this mark. Plaintiff failed to allege any facts even remotely demonstrating that Patel and Steiner willfully and purposely lied in their affidavits. Simply put, contradictory testimony between two pairs of witnesses, standing alone, does not establish one pair of witnesses to be liars any more than the other pair. Rather, they have created a disputed issue of fact.

In the case at bar, plaintiff had the opportunity to discover, and could reasonably have discovered, the disputed issue of fact regarding the extent of Patel’s and Steiner’s involvement in her case and treatment, prior to the entry of the summary judgments. She failed to do so. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s section 2 — 1401 petition to vacate the summary judgments for Patel and Steiner.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit court of Cook County, which denied plaintiff’s section 2 — 1401 petition, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON and McMORROW, JJ., concur.


author: JUSTICE JOHNSON

text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAREN DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    First District (4th Division)
    No. 87—1593
    Opinion filed January 19, 1989.

      Frank M. Howard, of Chicago, for appellant.
    Richard M. Daley, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Inge Fryklund, Patricia Y. Brown, and William B. Schiller, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE JOHNSON

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Karen Davis, was found guilty of obscenity (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 11—20(a)(2)) after a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County. She was placed on supervision for one year. On appeal, defendant requests a retrial because the issuance of a jury instruction to apply a statewide standard in determining the value of her performance was prejudicially erroneous. The State concedes that the instruction was erroneous, but maintains that the error was harmless.

We affirm.

About 10 p.m. on March 19, 1986, Chicago police investigator Michael Westlove paid a $2 admission fee and purchased tokens at “Broadway Girlies,” located at 2838 North Broadway in Chicago. When he entered a booth, he noticed foul odors, a white substance on the wall, and tissue paper and a sticky substance on the floor. After viewing a dance performance by a woman other than defendant, he observed defendant engaging in acts of vaginal masturbation for about three minutes. Defendant, who was completely nude, sat on a stool, elevated and separated her legs, spread open the vaginal area with her hand, and repeatedly inserted two fingers into her vagina. Music played continuously during defendant’s “performance,” but she neither danced nor gyrated her hips.

Previously, on February 3, 1986, Chicago police officer John Stapleton had viewed defendant for 12 to 14 minutes at the same establishment. During that “performance,” defendant engaged in various acts of vaginal and anal masturbation and then danced. Although Officer Stapleton denied that defendant was “boogeying,” he did concede that she was “moving” during the course of the February show.

The trial court permitted a psychologist, Aileen Thatcher, to testify to statewide obscenity standards in Illinois on defendant’s behalf. In Thatcher’s opinion, defendant’s performances appealed to a “normal interest in heterosexual sex” and were “basically accepted in the State of Illinois.”

Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court gave the following instruction to the jury:

“In determining whether a thing is obscene, you are to consider how it would be viewed by ordinary adults in the whole State of Illinois rather than by the people in any single city or town or region within the State.” (Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 9.57 (2d ed. 1981) (definition of obscene) (hereinafter IPI Criminal 2d No. 9.57).)

The trial judge believed that the absence of the above instruction would have confused the jury in light of Thatcher’s testimony on statewide obscenity standards. The jury then found defendant not guilty of obscenity in connection with the February show but guilty of obscenity in connection with the March show. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to apply a statewide standard instead of an objective “reasonable person” standard. The State agrees that IPI Criminal 2d No. 9.57 was erroneous, but contends that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Pope v. Illinois (1987), 481 U.S. 497, 501-03, 95 L.Ed. 2d 439, 446-47, 107 S. Ct. 1918, 1922, the Supreme Court held that a jury instruction to apply a statewide standard in determining the value of allegedly obscene magazines contravened the first amendment to the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. I) and that remand to this court was required for a harmless error determination. The Court observed that a retrial is not required “if it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s verdict in this case was not affected by the erroneous instruction.” (Pope, 481 U.S. at 502, 95 L. Ed. 2d at 446, 107 S. Ct. at 1922.) The Court observed further that “if a reviewing court concludes that no rational juror, if properly instructed, could find value in the [performance], the convictions should stand.” Pope, 481 U.S. at 503, 95 L. Ed. 2d at 447, 107 S. Ct. at 1922.

Turning to the instant case, we are convinced that no reasonable juror could have found serious value in defendant’s lewd acts of masturbation during the March show, which were utterly devoid of dance movement and merely served as a magnet for the semen that befouled defendant’s booth. The erroneous instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. Pursuant to People v. Nicholls (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 166, 374 N.E.2d 194, we grant the State’s request and assess defendant $50 as costs for this appeal.

Affirmed.

LINN and McMORROW, JJ., concur.


text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    Second District
    No. 2—86—0671
    Opinion filed February 2, 1989.

      G. Joseph Weller, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, and Charles M. Schiedel and Peter L. Rotskoff, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
    Paul A. Logli, State’s Attorney, of Rockford (William L. Browers and Lawrence M. Bauer, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
   JUSTICE LINDBERG

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Michael Chambers, was charged with residential burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 19—3(a)) in an information filed in the circuit court of Winnebago County. A jury found him guilty of that offense. He was subsequently sentenced to a 10-year term of imprisonment. Defendant has appealed this conviction of residential burglary.

Defendant raises four issues on appeal. Defendant contends that he should be granted a new trial because: (1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony that (a) defendant, “while *** in custody awaiting trial, *** threatened to harm the children of Sheila Stivers, the State’s primary witness,” and (b) the police obtained a warrant for defendant’s arrest; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State, on redirect examination of Stivers, to elicit testimony about (a) defendant’s “alleged heroin use” and (b) “allegations that before [defendant] was arrested, he threatened to kill Stivers and her children”; (3) the trial court erred in admitting “hearsay evidence which improperly bolstered the credibility of *** Sheila Stivers”; and (4) defendant was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of improper remarks made by the prosecutor during the State’s closing arguments.

Richard Bowers and his wife returned from their honeymoon on September 30, 1985. At about 6 p.m. on October 2,1985, they left their Rockford home to go to a friend’s house for dinner. All of the doors to the Bowers’ house were locked. They returned at about 11:30 p.m. At that time, the basement door was open. Upstairs, they found that the brown-striped tan pillowcases had been removed from their king-size bed. There were many wedding gifts in the house, most from Weise’s, where Bowers’ wife had registered. These included silver trays and salt and pepper shakers. About $1,000 worth of the gifts were missing. They went downstairs, where they noticed that the back door had been pried open. Bowers had a collection of Mickey Mouse watches, dating from the mid-1930s to August of 1985, that he kept in the china cabinet. This collection, valued at $3,000 to $5,000, waá gone.

Sheila Stivers contacted Detective Stephen Benny by telephone on October 29, 1985. On October 30, 1985, Stivers gave Benny two of the Mickey Mouse watches belonging to Bowers. That afternoon, Stivers gave Detectives Benny and Gray a statement implicating defendant and Monte McCoy in the October 2 burglary. Benny and Gray went to the county jail, where McCoy was being held, and found a Mickey Mouse watch and two Australian coins, which had been taken from Bowers’ home, among the property the jail was holding for McCoy. At about 7:30 p.m. Benny and Gray went to a trailer in which McCoy and defendant had been living. Defendant, John Carr, and one or two other people were in the trailer. The detectives found two champagne buckets in the kitchen and several Mickey Mouse watches in the living room, all of which belonged to Bowers.

Benny and Gray, on November 1, 1985, received another of Bowers’ Mickey Mouse watches from Dale Harwich. Harwich testified that he had paid defendant, who said the watch was “hot,” $10 for it. A stolen television, not taken in the Bowers burglary, was found in Harwich’s home. Harwich said that he bought it from McCoy, but that he had not known it was stolen. When he talked to the police, Harwich had been afraid he might be charged with burglary in regard to the stolen television.

Sheila Stivers testified that on October 3 at around 8:15 a.m. she went to the trailer in which defendant and McCoy lived. Defendant was in his bedroom, and McCoy and Tina James were in the living room. Stivers was sitting on the bed talking to defendant “about the stuff that they had stolen the night before.” Defendant was telling her “the things they had taken out of the house that they had broken into.” When she went into the living room she saw some watches, and defendant had told her they had gotten a silver tray and some brass buckets.

While Stivers and defendant were in the bedroom talking, McCoy yelled out, “Hey, Mike, you know whose house we hit last night?” Defendant responded, “No. Whose?” Defendant and Stivers went into the living room, where McCoy and James were reading a sales receipt from one of the watch cases that had the name Richard J. Bowers on it. Defendant said, “Oh, fuck, man, it don’t matter anyways. That dude is rich.”

Defendant opened the oven door and pulled out a silver tea service. There was a wooden wheel with jewelry on it. Defendant opened the cupboards and pulled out two brass champagne coolers, taken from Bowers’ residence. In response to questions from defendant, Stivers told him that she did not know what they were and did not know what they were worth.

Later on October 3, Stivers, defendant, and McCoy went to Weise’s Department Store. Stivers took two serving dishes and a pair of salt and pepper shakers inside. Stivers used a false name to return the items for a cash refund, which she gave to defendant. At a later date, defendant and Stivers went to the Broadway Book and Stamp Store with three watches to sell. The clerk there bought one of the watches. The other two watches were the ones Stivers later gave to Detective Benny.

Defense counsel cross-examined Stivers about her testimony’s inclusion of information she had not told the police on October 30. She had not told the police about defendant’s statement, “Oh, fuck, man, it don’t matter anyways. That dude is rich.” Nor had she told the police about defendant's asking her about the value of the champagne coolers. She also testified:

“Q. [Defense counsel]: Were you scared that you might get charged with something on October 30?
• A. Yes, I was.
Q. You did not want to be deprived of your children certainly, did you?
A. No. I was scared of a lot of things when I was down here on October 30. Mike [defendant] had threatened my children’s life. I was just plain scared. I wanted him as far away from me as I could get him. I was scared to death.”

On redirect examination, the State questioned Stivers about her delay in telling the police what she knew about the Bowers burglary.

“Q. [Prosecutor]: You learned of the Bowers’ burglary on the 3rd of October, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the reason you did not tell the police on the 3rd of October about the Bowers’ burglary?
A. At the time I just didn’t. I had no reason. I just didn’t.
Q. When did you get a reason.
A. The 19th of October; Mike had come to my house. We had sold some stuff to some people. I was supposed to go back and get the money. That day *** my kids’ father had died, and Mike came back to my house.
* * *

October 19 my kids’ father had died. That night I came home, and that day I was supposed to go back to pick up the money. Since he had died I couldn’t go back and get the money, so Mike came over to my house. He was mad. He said — called me a stupid bitch, told me if I fucked him over, he would fuck my kids up and fuck me up, too. He said he would burn my fucking house down with me and my kids in it if I didn’t get him that money. The next day I went and I got the money, and I brought it back to him.

Q. After that did you approach the police?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And your reason was to get back to him for what he said?
A. No. It was because I was scared. I went over to Mike’s house the 29th of October. Him and John Carr was in the living room ***.
* * *
Q. Exactly what was it they were doing which frightened you?
A. Shooting heroin.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Taking a needle and shooting it into their veins.”

Stivers knew it was heroin, although she had never used it. She was a recovering alcoholic and a recovering drug addict. As of May 5, 1986, she would have been dry for five months. She had last shot up cocaine on October 19, 1985, and before that had not shot any cocaine since September 28. Stivers testified that the facts of October 3 had become more clear than they had been to her on October 30 because not using drugs or alcohol had “defogged” her mind.

Stivers also during redirect examination (which occurred at the April 29,1986, trial) testified:

“Q. [Prosecutor]: *** [H]as there been anything else *** that has frightened you?
A. Yes, there has.
Q. What, please?
* * *

A. It was probably three months ago. I can’t tell you the date. .1 was at an A.A. meeting, and a friend of mine, her name is Lisa Rixie, she came up to me and she—

MR. KING [Defense counsel]: (Interrupting) Judge, I object to any conversation between this witness and anybody else.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. GEMIGNANI [Prosecutor]: Judge, I want to say — I will not say it in front of the jury.
THE COURT: You are offering it for what was said, not for the truth of what was said, but it was said.
MR. GEMIGNANI: That is correct.
THE COURT: Overruled; you may answer.
A. Lisa Rixie came up to me on a Sunday morning. She said, T have a message for you.’ I said, ‘Well, what is it?’
MR. KING: Judge, I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I said, ‘What is it?’ She said, ‘Do you know Mike Chambers?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ I said, ‘How do you know him?’ And Lisa goes, ‘He’s in jail with my brother, Jamie.’ And I don’t know Jamie Rixie. I have never met Jamie Rixie. But through Lisa, through A.A. meetings, I know he’s in jail for murder. She goes, ‘My brother called me and told me to tell you if you showed up at this trial, that something bad, really bad, was going to happen to your kids.’
THE COURT: You are offering that not for the truth of what was said *** to Mrs. Stivers but that this was said, is that correct?
MR. GEMIGNANI: That is correct.
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to consider it only for that purpose.
Yes?
MR. KING: Judge, I object to that. I think it is totally irrelevant. I think that the admonishment of the jury is of little or no consequence or effect. I would ask for a mistrial at this time.
THE COURT: Overruled — denied.
Q. [Prosecutor]: Who was it that ostensibly told Rixie that?
A. Jamie Rixie told his sister, Lisa, that.
Q. Who told Rixie?
A. Mike Chambers.
MR. KING: Judge, I object. She does not have any idea what was going on anyplace other than this testimony.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.”

Detective Gray testified that Stivers never contacted him about the threats defendant allegedly made from jail, which Stivers learned of from Lisa Rixie.

In his first issue, defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting (1) Sheila Stivers to testify on redirect examination about a conversation with Lisa Rixie regarding threats against Stivers defendant allegedly communicated while in jail to Lisa’s brother, Jamie, and (2) Detective Benny to testify that he obtained an arrest warrant for defendant after he talked with Stivers. In his second issue, defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting Stivers to testify on redirect examination about (1) threats made by defendant, against Stivers and her children, prior to defendant’s arrest and (2) her seeing defendant use heroin. With the exception of the testimony regarding the issuance of the arrest warrant, which will be discussed separately, the contentions made in the first two issues concern the State’s redirect examination of Stivers. We will discuss the alleged errors during redirect examination of Stivers in the order in which they occurred.

The first was Stivers’ testimony that defendant threatened Stivers and her children prior to his arrest and the second was her testimony that she saw defendant use heroin. Defendant contends that this testimony suggesting his commission of other crimes, although relevant to an issue he had raised on cross-examination of Stivers, had a probative value which was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. (People v. Rodriguez (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 43, 437 N.E.2d 441.) We disagree.

One of the points on which defendant cross-examined Stivers was the question of why she did not go to the police until October 29 when she testified she had known about defendant’s involvement in the offense at bar as early as October 3. To this end, defense counsel elicited the following testimony:

“Q. [Defense counsel]: Were you scared that you might get charged with something on October 30?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You did not want to be deprived of your children, certainly, did you?
A. No. I was scared of a lot of things when I was down here on October 30. Mike [defendant] had threatened my children’s life. I was just plain scared. I wanted him as far away from me as I could get him. I was scared to death.”

The implication in defense counsel’s questions and Stivers’ answers was that she was afraid of things the authorities might do to her (i.e., charge her with a crime or take her children away) and so went to the police to make a deal. She also volunteered that defendant had threatened her children’s lives and made it clear that she also feared him.

In response to this testimony, the State elicited the following testimony from Stivers on redirect examination:

“Q. [Prosecutor]: What is the reason you did not tell the police on the 3rd of October about the Bowers’ burglary?
A. At the time I just didn’t. I had no reason. I just didn’t.
Q. When did you get a reason?
A. The 19th of October; Mike had come to my house. We had sold some stuff to some people. I was supposed to go back and get the money. That day *** my kids’ father had died, and Mike came back to my house.
* * *
October 19 my kids’ father had died. That night I came home, and that day I was supposed to go back to pick up the money. Since he had died I couldn’t go back and get the money, so Mike came over to my house. He was mad. He said — called me a stupid bitch, told me if I fucked him over, he would fuck my kids and fuck me up, too. He said he would burn my house down with me and my kids in it if I didn’t get him that money. The next day I went and I got the money, and I brought it back to him.
Q. After that did you approach the police?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And your reason was to get back to him for what he said?
A. No. It was because I was scared. I went over to Mike’s house the 29th of October. Him and John Carr was in the living room ***.
* * *
Q. Exactly what was it they were doing which frightened you?
A. Shooting heroin.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Taking a needle and shooting it into their veins.”

Thus, the State through its redirect examination sought to show that, while Stivers’ reason for telling the police about defendant’s involvement in the offense was fear, it was fear of defendant and not fear of the authorities that motivated her.

To do this, it was important for the State to show the events that occurred between October 3 and October 29 so that the jury would know" why Stivers feared defendant on the latter date but, apparently, not on the former date. Also, as defendant recognizes, Stivers’ testimony was absolutely essential to the State’s case, so her credibility was of the utmost importance. Regarding her credibility, in order that the jury could evaluate the comparative effect of fear of the authorities and fear of defendant on Stivers’ decision to go to the police, it was important that the jury know the details of the two incidents Stivers said made her fear defendant. In view of the great importance of Stivers’ credibility in this case, the probative value of evidence of the October 19 threats and the October 29 heroin use outweighed the admittedly significant prejudicial effect of that evidence. The trial court therefore properly permitted the State to elicit testimony about those events on redirect examination of Stivers.

The third instance was Stivers’ testimony on redirect examination concerning a conversation she had with Lisa Rixie approximately three months prior to the April 29,1986, trial date. Stivers testified:

“Q. [Prosecutor]: *** [H]as there been anything else *** that has frightened you?
A. Yes, there has.
Q. What, please?
* * *

A. It was probably three months ago. I can’t tell you the date. I was at an A.A. meeting, and a friend of mine, her name is Lisa Rixie, she came up to me and she—

MR. KING [Defense counsel]: (Interrupting) Judge, I object to any conversation between this witness and anybody else.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. GEMIGNANI [Prosecutor]: Judge, I want to say — I will not say it in front of the jury.
THE COURT: You are offering it for what was said, not for the truth of what was said, but it was said.
MR. GEMIGNANI: That is correct.
THE COURT: Overruled; you may answer.
A. Lisa Rixie came up to me on a Sunday morning. She said, T have a message for you.’ I said, ‘Well, what is it?’
MR. KING: Judge, I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I said, ‘What is it?’ She said, ‘Do you know Mike Chambers?’ I said, ‘Yeah.’ I said, ‘How do you know him?’ And Lisa goes, ‘He’s in jail with my brother, Jamie.’ And I don’t know Jamie Rixie. I have never met Jamie Rixie. But through Lisa, through A.A. meetings, I know he’s in jail for murder. She goes, ‘My brother called mé and told me to tell you if you showed up at this trial, that something bad, really bad, was going to happen to your kids.’
THE COURT: You are offering that not for the truth of what was said *** to Mrs. Stivers but that this was said, is that correct?
MR. GEMIGNANI: That is correct.
THE COURT: The jury is admonished to consider it only for that purpose.
Yes?
MR. KING: Judge, I object to that. I think it is totally irrelevant. I think that the admonishment of the jury is of little or no consequence or effect. I would ask for a mistrial at this time.
THE COURT: Overruled — denied.
Q. [prosecutor]: Who was it that ostensibly told Rixie that?
A. Jamie Rixie told his sister, Lisa, that.
Q. Who told Rixie?
A. Mike Chambers.
MR. KING: Judge, I object. She does not have any idea what was going on anyplace other than this testimony.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.”

In considering the propriety of admitting this testimony, it is important to first understand what it was admitted to prove.

Although evidence of a defendant’s attempt to intimidate a witness is admissible to show consciousness of guilt (e.g., People v. Gambony (1948), 402 Ill. 74, 80, 83 N.E.2d 321, 325, cert. denied (1949), 337 U.S. 910, 93 L. Ed. 1722, 69 S. Ct. 1045; People v. Goodman (1977), 55 Ill. App. 3d 294, 296, 371 N.E.2d 168, 169; see also M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence §801.3, at 514 (4th ed. 1984); McCormick on Evidence §273 (E. Cleary 3d ed. 1984)), the testimony at issue was not admissible for that purpose. This is because, as evidence that defendant threatened Stivers’ children, the testimony would have been double hearsay, neither level of which fell within an exception to the hearsay rule (or, if a party admission is considered an exception to the hearsay rule rather than nonhearsay, triple hearsay, where only one of the levels fell within an exception to the hearsay rule). (See McCormick on Evidence §324.3 (E. Cleary 3d ed. 1984); M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence §805.1 (4th ed. 1984).) The trial court recognized this and so did not admit the testimony as evidence that defendant had threatened Stivers’ children. This is evident in the two comments of the court, which must have been rather cryptic to the jury, that the State was “offering it for what was said, not for the truth of what was said, but it was said” and “offering that not for the truth of what was said *** to Mrs. Stivers but that this was said.” The State argues that defendant has waived any contention that this testimony was inadmissible as hearsay by failing to make that argument. This is beside the point, as the testimony was recognized by all in the trial court as hearsay inadmissible for the purpose of proving that defendant made threats. The issue in both the trial court and this court is whether the testimony was admissible for the purpose of proving that “it was said” to Stivers.

Generally, irrelevant evidence should not be admitted. (E.g., People v. Kimbrough (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 481, 488, 485 N.E.2d 1292,1298.)

“ ‘ “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’ ” (People v. Monroe (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 317, 322, 362 N.E.2d 295, 297, quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401.)

As our supreme court has said:

“ ‘The test of the admissibility of evidence is whether it fairly tends to prove the particular offense charged’ (People v. Peter (1973) , 55 Ill. 2d 443, 459[, 303 N.E.2d 398, 408, cert. denied (1974) , 417 U.S. 920, 41 L. Ed. 2d 225, 94 S. Ct. 2627]), and whether what is offered as evidence will be admitted or excluded depends upon whether it tends to make the question of guilt more or less probable; i.e., whether it is relevant [citation]. A trial court may reject offered evidence on grounds of irrelevancy if it has little probative value due to its remoteness, uncertainty or its possibly unfair prejudicial nature. [Citations.] The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling should not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. [Citations.]” People v. Ward (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 443, 455-56, 463 N.E.2d 696, 702.

Since the testimony at issue occurred on redirect examination, the rules relative to redirect examination are also of importance in this case.

“Redirect examination is generally limited to the scope of the preceding cross-examination. [Citation.] The scope of further examination rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.]” (City of Chicago v. Brown (1978), 61 Ill. App. 3d 266, 274, 377 N.E.2d 1031,1037.)

On redirect examination, a party is permitted to question a witness on matters brought out during cross-examination (People v. Miller (1978), 58 Ill. App. 3d 156, 161, 373 N.E.2d 1077, 1081) and, accordingly, may ask a witness questions designed to remove unfavorable inferences or impressions raised by the cross-examination (People v. Sanchez (1979), 73 Ill. App. 3d 607, 610, 392 N.E.2d 378, 379). There are limits to what a party may do to rehabilitate a witness. Improper material should not be admitted under the guise of rehabilitation. (People v. Wilson (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 798, 805, 463 N.E.2d 890, 895.) Moreover, when meeting an attack on a witness’ credibility, “[t]he rehabilitating facts must meet a particular method of impeachment with relative directness. The wall, attacked at one point, may not be fortified at another and distinct point.” McCormick on Evidence §49, at 116 (E. Cleary 3d ed. 1984), citing Gertz v. Fitchburg R.R. Co. (1884), 137 Mass. 77, 78 (Justice Holmes, writing for the court, distinguished cases in which evidence offered as rehabilitating was admissible from those in which such evidence was inadmissible on the basis of whether the evidence was directed to the reason a witness should not be believed which underlay the particular mode of impeachment which had been employed).

Further, even if evidence is relevant it may not be admissible. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” (People v. Kimbrough (1985), 138 Ill. App. 3d 481, 489, 485 N.E.2d 1292, 1299; see People v. Monroe (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 317, 323, 362 N.E.2d 295, 297 (“Admissibility may also depend upon whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. [Citations.]”); People v. Rodriguez (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 43, 48, 437 N.E.2d 441, 445 (“However, even where factors are present which justify admitting evidence of other offenses, such evidence must be rejected where its prejudicial effect clearly outweighs its probative value. [Citations]”).) As we have held, “[E]ven highly relevant evidence must be weighed against its prejudicial impact on the jury, and this is a matter -within the sound discretion oi the trial court.” People v. Harris (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 112, 114, 414 N.E.2d 755, 757.

The testimony at issue came in response to the State’s question as to whether anything else had frightened Stivers. Evidence of that fear, however, should not have been admitted.

Stivers’ fear was not relevant to any of the elements of the residential burglary for which defendant was being tried. The State has never argued that it was. Rather, the State argues that it was in some way relevant to an issue concerning Stivers’ credibility which defendant raised during his cross-examination of her.

The State has accurately described the pertinent questions defendant asked of Stivers on cross-examination as going to “why does the witness a) come forward and give the police an initial statement? and b) why does the witness now have further testimony that she did not include in that statement?” The testimony at issue was not admissible with respect to either of these issues.

Regarding the first issue raised on cross-examination, the testimony at issue is obviously irrelevant. The conversation between Stivers and Lisa Rixie occurred several months after Stivers came forward and gave her initial statement. Any fear Stivers felt as a result of that conversation could not have affected her decision several months earlier to come forward and give a statement.

Regarding the second issue raised on cross-examination, the State, after Stivers testified that she was “a recovering alcoholic and recovering drug addict,” elicited the following testimony:

“Q. [Prosecutor]: How long were you a drug addict?
A. [Stivers]: Probably ten years.
Q. How long have you been dry?
A. *** [T]he 5th of May I’ll be dry for five months.
Q. 5th of May, this year?
A. This year; I went into treatment in October of ‘84, and I met Mike in my relapse. I started shooting cocaine.
* * *
Q. So when you gave this statement, you were shooting cocaine?
A. Not at the time, I hadn’t shot any cocaine since September 28. Then I shot cocaine again the 19th of October. That was the last day I shot cocaine.
Q. Have the facts of this event of the 3rd of October, have they become more clear as you have become less—
A. (Interrupting) Yes, they have.
* * *
Q. What, if anything, has made you become more clear?
A. I haven’t used drugs or alcohol.
Q. What has that done to your mind?
A. It’s defogged it. I can think. I can feel.”

Thus, Stivers explained that she remembered more at the time of trial than when she had made the statement on October 30 of the previous year because of the beneficial effect of no longer using alcohol or drugs.

The testimony at issue concerning the conversation between Stivers and Lisa Rixie was elicited immediately after Stivers’ testimony explaining why she remembered more. Yet, she never testified that she included more details at trial than in her initial statement because of fear resulting from her conversation with Lisa Rixie. In fact, she never testified that she was frightened while testifying. The artfully phrased questions on redirect only elicited that the conversation was something that had frightened Stivers, making no connection between that fear and her improved memory.

The testimony at issue, that Stivers was afraid at some undesignated time as a result of her conversation three months before trial with Lisa Rixie, appears to have no bearing on why Stivers included more details in her trial testimony than in her initial statement. It was so remote, uncertain, and potentially unfairly prejudicial that it had little, if any, probative value with respect to that issue. The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to exclude this testimony as irrelevant.

The testimony was purportedly offered to rehabilitate Stivers. However, the testimony’s little, if any, probative value and the prosecutor’s elicitation of the details about the content of the alleged threat made in jail and that defendant was alleged to be the source of the threat, indicate that the prosecutor was in reality placing improper material before the jury under the guise of rehabilitation. For this reason, as well, the trial court’s failure to exclude the testimony was an abuse of discretion.

It should also be apparent, from our discussion, that even if the testimony were somehow relevant, it should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice. The testimony’s modest probative value has already been noted. The danger of unfair prejudice from it was great. Not only did the testimony indicate that defendant may have committed another crime (see 111. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 32 — 4), it indicated that defendant was attempting to prevent Stivers from testifying against him and so that defendant was conscious of his own guilt. Particularly in view of the obscurity of the trial court’s admonitions to the jury as to the purpose for which the testimony was being admitted, the danger of such misuse of the evidence was great. Even with fuller admonitions, the testimony’s probative value was so far outweighed by the danger of its unfairly prejudicing defendant that it should not have been admitted. For this reason, too, the trial court’s admission of the testimony was an abuse of discretion.

The State also contends that the testimony at issue was “invited” by defendant’s cross-examination of Stivers. (See People v. Davis (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 426, 429, 416 N.E.2d 69, 71; People v. Marino (1980), 80 Ill. App. 3d 657, 666, 400 N.E.2d 491, 498.) In other words, the State contends that even if the testimony was irrelevant it was admissible under the doctrine of curative admissibility. There are three different rules concerning curative admissibility, each of which is supported by Illinois Supreme Court cases. (See People v. Higgins (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 912, 931, 390 N.E.2d 340, 354 (and cases cited therein); People v. Wilbert (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 974, 984-85, 305 N.E.2d 173, 179-80 (and cases cited therein).) Modern Illinois cases on the subject have generally followed one of the three rules, finding it to be better reasoned than the others. (See People v. Higgins (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 912, 931, 390 N.E.2d 340, 354 (and cases cited therein); People v. Wilbert (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 974, 986-87, 305 N.E.2d 173,181.) Under this rule:

“[A]n opponent may reply [to the admission of inadmissible evidence] with similar evidence if it is needed to eradicate an unfair prejudice which might ensue from the original evidence. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilbert (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 974, 984-85, 305 N.E.2d 173,180.)

As the Higgins court elaborated:

“The doctrine of curative admissibility, under this approach, is not intended to operate as a panacea for parties who fail to raise proper and timely objections to what should have been inadmissible evidence. It does not permit a party to introduce irrelevant evidence, merely because his opponent brought out some evidence on the same subject. [Citation.] Rather, the doctrine of curative admissibility is limited in scope and design to those situations where its invocation is deemed necessary to eradicate undue prejudicial inferences which might otherwise ensue from the introduction of the original evidence. The decision of whether to admit curative evidence lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge.” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Higgins (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 912, 931, 390 N.E.2d 340, 354.

As previously noted, the State has correctly identified the two significant areas into which defendant inquired during cross-examination. These were (1) the reasons Stivers went to the police on October 29 and gave a statement on October 30 when she had not done so previously even though she had known about the offense since October 3 and (2) the details in Stivers’ trial testimony that were absent from her initial statement to the police. The redirect testimony of Stivers regarding her conversation with Lisa Rixie was not admissible in response to this cross-examination for at least four reasons.

First, it is questionable whether the testimony at issue could be considered similar to any evidence adduced by defendant on cross-examination. It concerned a conversation Stivers was not cross-examined about at a time Stivers was not cross-examined about. In addition, Stivers did not connect the testimony at issue to either of the areas she was cross-examined about. Second, there does not appear to have been any unfair prejudice to the State caused by anything adduced by defendant on cross-examination of Stivers. Third, the testimony at issue, relating only to the reasons for Stivers’ fear at an unspecified time and not to either of the areas of the cross-examination, could be of no use in eradicating any unfair prejudice resulting from the cross-examination. And fourth, since the State had already offered testimony as to why Stivers went to the police when she did and why her memory of events in October was better at the time of trial than at the time she made her initial statement, even if the testimony at issue could somehow have been useful in eradicating some unfair prejudice resulting from the cross-examination, it would not have been necessary for that purpose.

For each of these reasons, the testimony at issue was not admissible under the doctrine of curative admissibility. Therefore, assuming arguendo that the trial court premised the admission of the testimony at issue upon the doctrine of curative admissibility, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting that testimony.

The State contends alternatively that the admission of the testimony at issue should be held harmless error. As was previously noted, the testimony of Stivers was crucial to the State’s case. Her credibility was impeached by her having been an alcoholic and drug addict around the time of the events about which she testified; by the omissions in her initial statement when compared with her trial testimony; and by the question regarding her motives for assisting in the prosecution of defendant. The improperly admitted testimony could have led the jury to conclude that defendant had committed another crime while in jail. “The erroneous admission of evidence of other crimes carries a high risk of prejudice and ordinarily calls for reversal.” (People v. Lindgren (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 129, 140, 402 N.E.2d 238, 244.) The risk of prejudice from the testimony at issue was even greater than that in most cases of the erroneous admission of other crimes evidence. The danger was that the jury would believe that defendant had threatened to harm Stivers’ children if she testified, indicating consciousness by defendant of his own guilt. Moreover, the jury could have found Stivers more credible in light of the lengths to which defendant was willing to go to keep her from testifying. Since Stivers’ testimony, and so her credibility, were crucial to the State’s case, this high risk of prejudice precludes our holding the error harmless.

We also do not find that the trial court’s attempt to have the jury consider the evidence for only a limited purpose made this potentially highly prejudicial error harmless. (See People v. Huber (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 163, 167, 475 N.E.2d 599, 602 (the erroneous admission of potentially highly prejudicial hearsay was not harmless in a bench trial, despite the trial judge’s statements that he did not consider the evidence for the purpose of determining the truth of the matter asserted and accepted it only for a restricted purpose).) This is particularly true in the case at bar, where the trial court’s admonitions to the jury not to consider the testimony for the truth of the matter asserted were sufficiently cryptic and understated that we have substantial doubt that they were understandable to the nonlaw-trained jurors who heard this case. The jury was instructed:

“Any evidence that was received for a limited purpose should not be considered by you for any other purpose.”

(See Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 1.01 (2d ed. 1981).) This instruction could not have improved the jury’s comprehension of the trial court’s obscure admonitions as to the purpose for which Stivers’ conversation with Lisa Rixie was being admitted.

The testimony of Stivers about her conversation with Lisa Rixie was not admissible, and its erroneous admission was not harmless. Defendant is therefore entitled to a reversal of his conviction and remand of this cause for a new trial.

We will also consider the remaining aspect of defendant’s first issue, which is likely to recur on retrial of this cause. See People v. Wilson (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 29, 42, 506 N.E.2d 571, 576.

Defendant contends that the trial court “erred in allowing Detective Benny to testify *** that after talking with Sheila Stivers, he obtained an arrest warrant for [defendant]” because “[testimony concerning an arrest warrant is not relevant unless the testimony is probative on a specific issue in the case.” In support of this contention, defendant cites People v. Wilson (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 29, 52, 506 N.E.2d 571, 581.

The arrest warrant at issue in People v. Wilson was for an offense committed prior to the offense for which the defendant was being tried. (People v. Wilson (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 29, 506 N.E.2d 571; see People v. Salazar (1988), 126 Ill. 2d 424, 454-56, 477-79 (opinions of the court and of Clark, J., dissenting).) The rule applied in People v. Wilson is inapplicable to the case at bar, in which the arrest warrant at issue was for the offense at bar and not for a previous offense.

The admissibility of the testimony at issue is governed by another rule. As was stated in People v. Olivas:

“It has uniformly been held that evidence concerning acts which are closely and inextricably mixed up with the history of the guilty act itself as to form part of one chain of relevant circumstances is admissible. [Citation.]” (People v. Olivas (1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 146,150, 354 N.E.2d 424, 428.)

Further:

“[T]he prosecution may introduce evidence as a narrative of police activities leading to the arrest and subsequent identification of a defendant.” (People v. McNair (1981), 102 Ill. App. 3d 322, 332, 429 N.E.2d 1233,1240.)

(See also, e.g., People v. Sessions (1968), 95 Ill. App. 2d 17, 24, 238 N.E.2d 94, 98-99 (“In a criminal prosecution, the State may offer a continuous narrative of the events that formed the context of the arrest. [Citations]”).) The arrest warrant’s issuance was a part of the narrative of police activities leading to defendant’s arrest and was intertwined with the circumstances of the arrest (see People v. Davis (1981), 93 Ill. App. 3d 187, 192, 416 N.E.2d 1179, 1182-83). Testimony that an arrest warrant was issued was therefore properly admitted.

Defendant’s third issue, in which he contends that he “was denied his sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him by the trial court’s erroneous admission of hearsay evidence which improperly bolstered the credibility of the State’s primary witness, Sheila Stivers,” could also recur on remand. However, this issue, which was not raised in the trial court in the specific terms argued on appeal, was not included in defendant’s post-trial motion. Since this cause is being remanded for a new trial on other grounds, we decline to consider this waived issue under the plain-error doctrine. See 107 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Andino (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 952, 954-55, 425 N.E.2d 1333,1335.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

UNVERZAGT, P.J., and WOODWARD, J., concur.