Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On January 9, 1989, a robbery took place at the Chicago branch of the Acme Continental Credit Union. On January 20, 1989, the same credit union was robbed in a manner similar to that on January 9. But this time a witness got the license number on the getaway car. D was arrested and indicted. P did not call Riggins as a witness in its case in chief. D called her as a defense witness. On cross-examination, P exceeded the scope of direct examination by inquiring into the following subjects: (1) ds statement to her that he committed the robberies, made to her in the holding room at the police station after he confessed to the authorities; (2) her recollection of the clothing D wore when he left Indianapolis for Chicago on January 20, 1989; and (3) her recognition of the clothing discarded following the January 9 robbery as similar to clothing owned by D. D objected to these questions at trial on the ground that they were prohibited by Rule 611(b). The trial court invoked its discretion under the rule to permit the questions.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.