Does Incomplete Impeachment In Cross-Examination Constitutes Improper Questioning by a Lawyer ?
In Lee v. Calfa, 174 Ill. App. 3d 101, 528 N.E.2d 336, 123 Ill. Dec. 791 (1988), defense counsel suggested during his cross-examination of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's testimony was impeached by prior inconsistent statements. Lee, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 112.
Either this incomplete impeachment was abandoned or objections were sustained in relation to the questioning. Lee, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 112.
This court stated, citing Green, that incomplete impeachment was highly prejudicial. Lee, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 112.
The Court further found that since the outcome of the case was largely dependent on whether the jury found the plaintiff or the defendant credible, and the incomplete impeachment was intended to lead the jury to doubt the plaintiff's credibility, defense counsel's questioning was improper. Lee, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 112. However, the Court also found that, taken individually, the incomplete impeachment and the other errors made in the case did not require reversal, but when taken together, reversal was required. Lee, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 112.