Case Title: People v. Encalado

Citation: 2018 IL 122059

Docket Number: 122059

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 IL 122059 
IN THE  
SUPREME COURT  
OF  
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS  
(Docket No. 122059) 
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. 
THEOPHIL ENCALADO, Appellee. 
Opinion filed March 22, 2018. 
JUSTICE BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 
Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Garman, and 
Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
OPINION 
¶ 1 
The defendant in the case at bar, Theophil Encalado, asked the trial court during 
voir dire to question the venire about whether evidence that he had engaged the 
services of a prostitute would influence the prospective jurors’ judgment in any 
way. The circuit court of Cook County refused defendant’s request, and he was 
subsequently found guilty on three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 2 
On appeal, the appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed defendant’s 
convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court “abused its 
discretion when it refused to ask venire members questions about potential bias 
against persons who participate in prostitution.” 2017 IL App (1st) 142548, ¶ 1. 
¶ 3 
For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court. 
¶ 4 
Background 
¶ 5 
Defendant was indicted on 15 charges of aggravated criminal sexual assault and 
3 charges of criminal sexual assault. In the indictment, it was alleged that, on the 
morning of March 5, 2006, defendant knowingly, and by the use of force or threat 
of force, committed acts of oral, vaginal, and anal sexual penetration upon Y.C. 
¶ 6 
Prior to defendant’s trial, the State filed a motion to admit other crimes 
evidence to show that defendant committed similar sexual assaults against J.H., 
C.C., and S.A. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s request with 
respect to C.C. and S.A., allowing admittance of other crimes evidence to show 
intent, lack of consent, and propensity. The court denied the State’s request with 
respect to J.H. but ruled that the State could impeach defendant with his conviction 
for predatory criminal sexual assault against J.H. if he chose to testify. 
¶ 7 
After the trial court ruled to allow the admission of other crimes evidence, 
defense counsel advised the court that defendant intended to testify that Y.C., C.C., 
and S.A. all consented to having sex with defendant in exchange for the payment of 
cash and drugs but that, after they provided the agreed services, defendant took 
back the payments he made. Counsel stated that the jurors “are going to hear 
evidence that [defendant] did engage in soliciting and using prostitutes.” 
Accordingly, defense counsel asked the court to inquire of the venire whether 
“[t]he fact that you will hear evidence about—and just put it mildly—to not try to 
indoctrinate them at all—you will hear evidence about prostitution. Would that fact 
alone prevent you from being fair to either side?” The court refused the request, 
finding that the question was improper because it would be “asking them to 
comment on particular types of evidence that they may hear.” 
- 2 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 8 
The matter proceeded to trial on 6 of the 18 counts of aggravated criminal 
sexual assault committed against Y.C. At trial, Y.C. testified that around 6 a.m. on 
March 5, 2006, as she was walking on Sawyer Street in Chicago to go to a bakery, 
she saw a car parked across the street with a man inside. The man, whom she did 
not recognize but later identified as defendant, called to her. Y.C. crossed the street 
on her way to the bakery, bringing her closer to the car. Defendant then called out to 
her again, saying “[Y]o, your cousin Jose, he was looking for you.” Because Y.C. 
had a cousin Jose who lived a few blocks away, she went over to the car and asked 
what Jose wanted. Defendant, said, “He needs you.” Y.C. then got into defendant’s 
car. 
¶ 9 
Once Y.C. was in defendant’s car, he began driving in the opposite direction. 
Y.C. asked where they were going and defendant said, “[Y]ou know what this is.” 
Y.C. testified she did not know what he meant but thought perhaps she was going to 
be robbed. Defendant then proceeded to an alley where there were no other cars or 
people. At this point, Y.C. testified, she became very frightened. She told defendant 
that she was pregnant and begged defendant not to do anything to harm her or her 
unborn child. Defendant, however, cursed at her and told her to shut up. 
¶ 10 
Y.C. testified that she tried to open the car door, but it was locked. Defendant 
became angry and began to strike her repeatedly in the face. Also, he opened the 
glove compartment, showed her a pistol, and threatened to kill her. Defendant then 
forced Y.C. to perform oral sex on him, after which he sexually penetrated her 
vaginally and anally. When defendant was finished, he ordered Y.C. out of the car. 
As Y.C. tried to “fix” herself because her pants and underwear fell off her feet, 
defendant threw her shoe and underwear out of the car. Also, defendant began 
pushing Y.C. out of the car and told her that if she did not leave his car 
immediately, he would kill her. 
¶ 11 
After defendant drove away, Y.C. ran into the street and tried to wave down 
cars. At this point, Deputy Fernando Rodriguez of the Cook County Sheriff’s 
Office happened along, saw Y.C., and stopped to help her. He took Y.C. to the 
police station and then to the hospital where a sexual assault kit was collected. 
Subsequent analysis of the kit showed the presence of semen in the vaginal and anal 
swabs. Forensic testing matched defendant’s DNA to the vaginal sample but not to 
the anal sample. 
- 3 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 12 
Y.C. testified that she moved to South Carolina in 2007 and, in 2009, she went 
to a South Carolina police department to view a photo array. From this photo array, 
she was able to identify defendant as her assailant. In addition, in May 2009, she 
came to Chicago to view a physical lineup. Again, she identified defendant as her 
attacker. 
¶ 13 
Deputy Rodriguez testified, confirming that, on March 5, 2006, as he was 
driving northbound on Kedzie Avenue near Moffat Street, he saw Y.C. in the 
middle of the street, frantically waving her arms and trying to persuade passing cars 
to stop. Deputy Rodriguez described Y.C. as very distressed. He said she had blood 
on her mouth, was crying hysterically, was shaking, and was unable to speak at 
times. He took Y.C. to the police station and then to the hospital. 
¶ 14 
The State then presented evidence that defendant had committed similar acts of 
sexual assault against C.C. C.C. testified that on the evening of September 1, 2002, 
she had gone to the Red Dog Club on North Avenue in Chicago with her sister. 
C.C. said she decided to leave the club to get some fresh air and sit in her sister’s 
car. As she walked toward the car, a man1 drove up and asked if she needed a ride. 
Initially, she said no. However, when she could not find her sister’s car and because 
it was very cold outside, when defendant drove up again, she got into his car. C.C. 
testified that she did not recognize the man and that, after she entered the car, he put 
a bandana on his face, which kept her from getting a good look at him. 
¶ 15 
When the man put the bandana on, C.C. asked him what he was doing. The man 
punched her in the mouth, displayed a knife, and told her to shut up. Because C.C. 
began screaming, the man punched her again. C.C. tried to get out of the car, but the 
door was locked. Defendant then told her to take her clothes off and that “it was 
going to happen whether [she] liked it or not.” C.C. testified that she started crying 
but defendant ignored her cries, jumped on top of her, and sexually assaulted her, 
penetrating her vaginally. When he was done, he told her to put her clothes on as he 
drove back to the club. At the club, he told C.C to get out of the car. But before she 
did, he tore her jewelry off. 
- 4 ­
1C.C. was never able to identify defendant as her assailant, but DNA linked defendant to the 
attack. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 16 
C.C. testified that when she got back to the club she contacted the police, who 
were already at the club because they provided security at closing time. C.C. was 
taken to the hospital, where a sexual assault kit was collected. Evidence was 
presented to show that defendant’s DNA matched the swab taken at the hospital. 
The State then rested its case. 
¶ 17 
Defendant testified in his own defense. He admitted that he had sex with Y.C. 
and C.C. and also admitted he had a prior conviction for predatory criminal sexual 
assault. However, defendant claimed that, on March 5, 2006, he had gone to the 
area near Armitage Road and Kedzie Avenue because it was an area known for 
prostitution. He said he saw Y.C., pulled up next to her, and asked her for a date, “if 
she was working.” According to defendant, Y.C. said “Yes” and immediately got 
into his car. Defendant said he offered Y.C. money and marijuana in exchange for 
oral and vaginal sex and she agreed. He then parked in an alley, where they engaged 
in consensual oral and vaginal intercourse. 
¶ 18 
Defendant further testified that, because he was not able “to finish,” he decided 
to grab the money and marijuana back. He said this enraged Y.C., who began 
swinging at him and yelling at him, demanding the money back. Defendant said he 
then opened the door, grabbed Y.C.’s pants and underwear, threw them out of the 
car, and told Y.C. to get out. Defendant admitted threatening Y.C. that she “better 
not be here when I get back.” Defendant denied punching Y.C. and denied having a 
gun. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that he penetrated Y.C.’s anus 
“accidentally.” Defendant claimed he immediately stopped and apologized. 
¶ 19 
With regard to C.C., defendant testified that he picked her up on September 1, 
2002, around North Avenue and Wood Street, another area known for prostitution. 
Defendant said he saw C.C. on the street and honked at her and she came over to his 
car. He then negotiated with her, offering her $60 and some cocaine in exchange for 
oral and vaginal sex. When she agreed, she got into his car, and he drove to a 
parking lot, where they engaged in sex. He testified further that, after having sex, he 
“did the same stupid act. I took—I went and took my money back from her.” 
Defendant claimed that when he took the money back, C.C. slapped him and pulled 
his hair. He then reached over and pushed her out of the car and drove away. 
Defendant denied forcing C.C. to have sex, punching her, having worn a bandana, 
having a knife, or taking C.C.’s jewelry. Defendant admitted he had been convicted 
- 5 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of predatory criminal sexual assault but denied sexually assaulting either Y.C. or 
C.C. Defendant then rested. 
¶ 20 
The jury found defendant guilty on three counts of aggravated criminal sexual 
assault. In a motion for a new trial, defendant again raised the issue of the court’s 
refusal to question the venire about prostitution. The trial court denied the motion 
for a new trial. Defendant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the 
three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, with each sentence to run 
consecutive to each other and consecutive to defendant’s sentence in the predatory 
criminal sexual assault case. 
¶ 21 
The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, reversed defendant’s 
convictions and remanded for a new trial. 2017 IL App (1st) 142548. The court 
held that the circuit court abused its discretion when it refused to question the 
venire members about any potential bias they might have in connection with 
prostitution. 
¶ 22 
We granted the State’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. 
Mar. 15, 2016). We also allowed The John Marshall Law School’s Pro Bono 
Program & Clinic to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the State. Ill. S. Ct. R. 
345 (eff. Sep. 20, 2010). 
¶ 23 
Analysis 
¶ 24 
A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury. 
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 727 (1992); People v. Strain, 194 Ill. 2d 467, 475 
(2000). To secure this right, inquiry is permitted during voir dire “ ‘to ascertain 
whether the juror has any bias, opinion, or prejudice that would affect or control the 
fair determination by him of the issues to be tried.’ ” People v. Lobb, 17 Ill. 2d 287, 
300 (1959) (quoting Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413 (1895)). “The 
purpose of voir dire is to ascertain sufficient information about prospective jurors’ 
beliefs and opinions so as to allow removal of those members of the venire whose 
minds are so closed by bias and prejudice that they cannot apply the law as 
instructed in accordance with their oath.” People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d 483, 
495-96 (1993). Jurors “must harbor no bias or prejudice which would prevent them 
- 6 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
from returning a verdict according to the law and evidence.” Strain, 194 Ill. 2d at 
476. 
¶ 25 
The manner, extent, and scope of voir dire examination rests within the 
discretion of the trial court. Id.; People v. Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d 467, 484 (1998); 
People v. Rinehart, 2012 IL 111719, ¶ 16. However, “the trial court must exercise 
its discretion in a manner consistent with the purpose of voir dire.” Strain, 194 Ill. 
2d at 476. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the conduct of the trial court 
thwarts the purpose of voir dire examination—namely, the selection of a jury free 
from bias or prejudice.” Rinehart, 2012 IL 111719, ¶ 16. “To be constitutionally 
compelled, it is not enough that a voir dire question be helpful[;] rather, the trial 
court’s failure to ask the question must render the defendant’s proceedings 
fundamentally unfair.” Terrell, 185 Ill. 2d at 485. 
¶ 26 
The appellate court below observed that various courts have noted that certain 
sexual behaviors, including prostitution, can evoke “strong responses.” 2017 IL 
App (1st) 142548, ¶ 31. The appellate court further observed that a number of 
jurisdictions use public shaming against patrons of prostitutes as a means to reduce 
prostitution because “legislatures and the customers of women who exchange sex 
for money know that many persons feel strong disgust and antipathy toward the 
patrons of prostitutes.” Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Based on these observations, the appellate 
court concluded that “jurors may hold similar biases against customers of women 
who exchange sex for money.” Id. ¶ 32. From this, the appellate court reasoned 
that, because the jury in this case was going to hear evidence that defendant 
patronized prostitutes, his proffered question should have been put to the jurors so 
he could ascertain whether they were free from bias. Relying largely on this court’s 
decision in Strain, the appellate court then concluded that, because the question 
was not asked, defendant’s voir dire proceeding was fundamentally unfair and his 
convictions had to be reversed. We disagree. 
¶ 27 
The relevant question in this case is not whether patrons of prostitutes can be 
made to feel ashamed if their behavior is publicized or whether prostitution evokes 
“strong responses” in the minds of the public. Rather, the question is whether 
prospective jurors harbor such bias against those people who patronize prostitutes 
that the jurors will not believe the testimony of such a person or be able to give that 
person a fair hearing. It is the jurors’ ability to fairly consider the evidence before 
- 7 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
them that is the critical issue. See, e.g., Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d at 495-96 (the purpose 
of voir dire is to ascertain and remove those jurors whose “minds are so closed by 
bias and prejudice that they cannot apply the law as instructed in accordance with 
their oath”). 
¶ 28 
This point was made clear in Strain. In Strain, the defendant was charged with 
first degree murder. The State’s theory of the case, which was advanced before 
trial, was that the murder victim was an innocent bystander who was killed during 
an attempted retaliation for a previous gang shooting. Strain, 194 Ill. 2d at 469-73. 
Because gang testimony was certain to be prevalent throughout the trial, the 
defendant asked the trial court to question the potential jurors during voir dire as to 
whether they would find the defendant less believable if they learned he was a 
member of a gang. Id. at 471-72. The trial court refused to ask the defendant’s 
questions, and after a trial that was “permeated” with gang information (id. at 473), 
the defendant was convicted. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the 
defendant’s conviction because the trial court had refused the proffered questions 
and, as result, the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair voir dire proceeding. 
¶ 29 
In affirming the judgment of the appellate court, this court in Strain made clear 
that gang-related testimony was pervasive throughout the trial, being offered not 
only by detectives and police officers assigned to gang units but also by gang 
members themselves. Id. at 477-78. The court also emphasized that the outcome of 
the trial turned on the credibility of the defendant, various police officers, and 
members of gangs. Id. at 473. Finally, and of particular relevance here, the court in 
Strain pointed to a substantial body of Illinois law that holds that street gangs are 
regarded with considerable disfavor by other segments of our society and that, 
unless there is sufficient proof that membership or activity in a gang relates to the 
crime charged, evidence that a defendant is a gang member is generally excluded 
because of its prejudicial effect. Id. at 477. We then explained that “[t]he same 
concerns regarding the prejudicial effect of gang evidence dictate our holding that, 
when testimony regarding gang membership and gang-related activity is to be an 
integral part of the defendant’s trial, the defendant must be afforded an opportunity 
to question the prospective jurors, either directly or through questions submitted to 
the trial court, concerning gang bias.” Id. 
- 8 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¶ 30 
The voir dire questions in Strain were not required because gang members feel 
ashamed of being in a gang, or simply because gang membership provokes strong 
feelings in the public. Instead, the questions were required because the public views 
the testimony of gang members with skepticism and may, therefore, fail to consider 
the testimony of a gang member without prejudice. And, importantly, this fact was 
established by a substantial body of case law. 
¶ 31 
There is no similar body of law here. None of the articles or decisions cited by 
the appellate court below discuss how members of the general public treat the 
testimony of those who patronize prostitutes. And none of the authorities establish 
that the public harbors bias against the patrons of prostitutes to the extent that such 
a person’s testimony cannot be considered fairly. See 2017 IL App (1st) 142548, 
¶¶ 59-63 (Mason, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
¶ 32 
Our decision in Strain is distinguishable from the present case in another 
important respect. In Strain, there was no dispute that the majority of the witnesses 
who testified were gang members. The defendant himself, although he denied 
being a gang member at the time of the offense, admitted to being a gang member 
for many years. People v. Strain, 306 Ill. App. 3d 328, 332 (1999). In other words, 
in Strain, the gang affiliation of the witnesses was a matter that was both 
inescapably a part of the trial and a matter that was not in dispute by either party. 
See also, e.g., People v. Peeples, 155 Ill. 2d 422, 459-60 (1993) (noting that 
voir dire questions regarding attitudes on race are required only where it is clear 
that racial issues are “ ‘inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial’ ” 
(quoting Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 597 (1976))). 
¶ 33 
In this case, in contrast, it was disputed whether Y.C. and C.C. were, in fact, 
prostitutes. Thus, defendant’s proffered question did not involve a matter that was 
indisputably true and inextricably a part of trial. Rather, the question amounted to a 
preliminary argument regarding a disputed question of fact. This type of 
questioning during voir dire is generally not permitted. See, e.g., Rinehart, 2012 IL 
111719, ¶ 17 (specific questions tailored to the facts of the case and intended to 
serve as “ ‘preliminary final argument’ ” are generally impermissible (quoting 
People v. Mapp, 283 Ill. App. 3d 979, 989-90 (1996))); People v. Bowel, 111 Ill. 2d 
58, 64-65 (1986) (questions designed to educate the jurors on the defendant’s 
- 9 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
theory of defense and ensure the selected jurors are receptive to that defense are 
generally prohibited). 
¶ 34 
Further, defendant’s proffered question must be considered in the context of the 
charges made against him. Defendant was charged with, inter alia, intentionally 
committing acts of sexual penetration upon the victim’s vagina, anus, and mouth 
while armed with a firearm. The members of the venire were informed of these 
charges and were asked by the trial court during voir dire whether there was 
anything about the nature of the charges that would prevent them giving both sides 
a fair and impartial trial. Some members of the venire were excused when they 
informed the court that, because of personal experiences with sexual assault, they 
could not fairly consider the evidence and remain impartial. The remaining 
members of the jury were accepted by both sides and deemed capable of 
considering the evidence fairly and without prejudice. Thereafter, at trial, the jury 
heard extensive, explicit testimony regarding the sexual conduct committed by 
defendant, much of which was given by defendant himself. Even if it were true that 
Y.C. and C.C. were prostitutes, it is difficult to conceive how a juror who could 
fairly judge the explicit sexual conduct would be rendered incapable of fairly 
judging defendant based on the fact he patronized prostitutes. 
¶ 35 
The trial court in the case at bar conducted a thorough voir dire, asking all 
members of the venire, among other things, whether they could follow the law and 
obey the instructions given by the court and whether they would use sympathy, 
bias, or prejudice in reaching a decision. Further, there is no body of law that holds 
that the testimony of patrons of prostitutes is treated with skepticism by the public. 
In addition, allowing defendant’s proffered question would have permitted 
defendant to preargue a disputed issue of fact. Given these circumstances, we 
cannot say that refusing defendant’s proffered question regarding prostitution 
rendered the voir dire proceeding fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we hold that 
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s question. 
- 10 ­
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
¶ 36 
Conclusion 
¶ 37 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed. 
¶ 38 
Appellate court judgment reversed. 
- 11 ­