IL: Def did not open door to admit suppressed evidence by lying about it

The exception to the exclusionary rule that suppressed evidence can be used for impeachment purposes did not apply to outright perjury about the finding of a gun. Defendant pro se here stated in opening and in cross that the gun was never recovered. It was recovered. But, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hold that opened the door to making the gun admissible after it was already suppressed. Nevertheless, the proof was otherwise overwhelming, so it was harmless. People v. Coppage, 2021 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2280 (Dec. 23, 2021) (unpublished).* (This could have gone the other way. That’s why it’s unpublished.)

Officers had reasonable suspicion to talk to defendant about being a shooter or witness to it. When they arrived to the shots fired call, he saw them and ran, and he was the only one around. The fact this was a high crime area isn’t even considered. He tossed a gun in flight. Suppression order reversed. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2021 PA Super 253, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 742 (Dec. 22, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.