# People v. Chatmon

> Appellate Court of Illinois · November 17, 1992 · 236 Ill. App. 3d 913

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526376

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY C. CHATMON, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** November 17, 1992
- **Citations:** 236 Ill. App. 3d 913; 178 Ill. Dec. 143; 604 N.E.2d 399; 1992 WL 335943
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McLAREN
- **Judges:** Inglis, McLaren
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526376

## Opinion text

JUSTICE McLAREN, dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. I authored People v. Lambert (2d Dist. May 19, 1992), No. 2—90—0363 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), which was a Supreme Court Rule 23 dispositional order which reversed the judgment and remanded the cause on other grounds. Frederick Lambert was one of three defendants charged with Mr. Simmons’ homicide. Mr. Chatmon, defendant herein, and Clementhis Lambert were the two other defendants charged. I do not cite to the Lambert disposition as precedent but rather to show that I remain consistent in my judgment as to the weight attributed to Lori Mullins’ testimony. I wrote therein:
“It would be unjust to convict defendant based upon Mullins’ statements alone. However, other evidence was provided by the State which would, if believed, be sufficient to both corroborate certain aspects of Mullins’ testimony and support a conviction. Most notably, we refer to the statements Louis Leavy gave to the police. Leavy’s statements tend to incriminate defendant.” Lambert, slip R. 23, at 6.
In the above-cited Lambert case, Stacy Lovings’ testimony was presented to the jury, and the jury was properly instructed to use the prior statements made by Lovings only for purposes of impeachment. In the present case, her prior inconsistent statements were improperly submitted as substantive evidence.
I must disagree with the majority that the defendant has not shown reversible error. I reasonably believe the jury could have found Mr. Chatmon not guilty if Stacy Lovings’ testimony had been properly presented to the jury. I, therefore, would determine that reversible error was committed and remand the cause for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526376. Public record. Not legal advice.