The opinion
Mr. Justice Schaefer dissenting:
To find the defendant guilty it is necessary to believe that he went to a filling station where he was known to the attendant, engaged the attendant and a customer in a conversation for about five minutes and then, after the customer had left, held up the attendant. It is possible, of course, that he did so, but it does not seem very likely. The improbable story told by Brooks, the filling station attendant, emphasizes the prejudicial effect of the trial court’s refusal to permit the defendant to impeach that story by showing that immediately after the robbery Brooks had told the investigating police officers that he had been held up not by one man, but by two.
The defendant seems to have been caught between contradictory theories adopted by the trial court and by the majority of this court. The trial court apparently felt that the defendant’s counsel had not been diligent because he did not obtain the impeaching statement until the witness Brooks had testified. But under our decisions the defendant was not entitled to the statement until the witness had taken the stand and testified. People v. Neiman, 30 Ill.2d 393 ; People v. Edmunds, 30 Ill.2d 538 ; People v. Wolff, 19 Ill.2d 318 ; People v. Moses, 11 Ill.2d 84 .
It is clear that the majority of this court does not adopt the theory of the trial court, but beyond that it is difficult to know upon just what ground it proceeds. It points out that the defendant’s counsel did not know what the testimony of the police officers would be, but the significance of that lack of knowledge is not apparent. People v. Robinson, 22 Ill.2d 162 , is clearly not in point. I simply do not know what is meant by the statement in the majority opinion, “* * * it would appear that had a proper use been made of the written report the need for calling the officers to establish the purported contradiction would never have arisen.” The witness who was being impeached had denied that he had stated to the investigating officers that he had been held up by two men. Impeachment could not be completed without the testimony of the officers to whom the alleged contradictory statement was made.
In my opinion it was prejudicial error to deny the defendant the opportunity to impeach the testimony of the only occurrence witness offered by the prosecution.
Klingbiel, C.J., and Solfisburg, J., join in this dissent.