2024 IL App (1st) 221226-U

No. 1-22-1226 

FIRST DIVISION

April 15, 2024

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RICHARD DOWNS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of Cook County.

No. 19 CR 14226

The Honorable

James B. Linn, 

Judge, presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Coghlan concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: (1) The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed first 

degree murder. (2) The circuit court did not err when it admitted the other-crimes evidence, nor 

did the admission of other-crimes evidence prejudice defendant. (3) Defendant’s challenge based 

on the use of an investigative alert is without merit, as the admission of evidence derived from 

the arrest would be harmless error if the arrest was held unconstitutional. 

¶ 2 Defendant, Richard Downs, appeals his conviction of first degree murder. He argues that 

the State failed to establish that he was the individual who committed the murder since only 

circumstantial evidence linked him to the crime; the circuit court erred when it admitted other-
1-22-1226 

-2- 

crimes evidence; and his arrest pursuant to an investigative alert violated his Illinois 

constitutional right against unreasonable seizures. We affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 A grand jury indicted defendant with two counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-

1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2016)). The indictment alleged that defendant stabbed and killed Kevin 

Faulkner. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Prior to proceeding to a jury trial, both parties 

filed pretrial motions.

¶ 5 A. Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence

¶ 6 Defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence wherein he argued that 

the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. At the hearing on the motion, Detective Williams 

Sullivan testified he received an assignment to investigate a homicide that took place at 8334 

South Cottage Grove on November 6, 2016. Sullivan was informed that the Illinois State Police 

Crime Lab recently determined that defendant’s DNA was associated with DNA collected from 

the crime scene. 

¶ 7 Sullivan reviewed reports, reviewed defendant’s criminal history, reviewed videos, and 

reinterviewed witnesses. Sullivan learned that defendant had three prior incidents involving the 

use of a knife. A witness captured the incident with her cellphone, and she provided the video to 

the police. The attacker in the cellphone video had grey hair. Two witnesses described the 

attacker as five feet, five inches tall. Defendant had grey hair and was five feet, five inches tall. 

¶ 8 Sullivan instructed the fugitive apprehension unit to arrest defendant. He did not obtain 

an arrest warrant. Two officers surveilled defendant’s home. The officers arrested defendant 

when he exited his home on September 12, 2019. The arresting officers recovered a folding 
1-22-1226 

-3- 

knife. While defendant was in custody, Sullivan obtained a search warrant for a buccal swab 

from defendant.

¶ 9 Following argument, the circuit court denied the motion.

¶ 10 B. Motion to Admit Other-Crimes Evidence

¶ 11 The State filed a motion to allow proof of other-crimes evidence. The State proffered 

three prior incidents. In 2006, defendant engaged in a verbal altercation with Richard Jones. 

During the altercation, defendant first threw a bottle at Jones, and then he grabbed him by his 

shirt and stabbed him multiple times with a pocketknife. In 2013, defendant walked up to 

Christopher Warner and stabbed him with a pocketknife near the 8600 block of South Ingleside. 

Defendant was upset about something. In 2014, defendant was in a relationship with Willie Mae 

Allen. During a verbal altercation with Allen, Defendant pulled out a knife. He then stuck his 

thumb in her eye. A third individual broke down the bedroom door and removed defendant off

Allen. The State sought to introduce the other-crimes evidence based on modus operandi, 

identity, and intent.

¶ 12 The circuit court granted the State’s motion with respect to the 2013 and 2014 incident. 

The circuit court reasoned that defendant had a consistent pattern of sudden unprovoked fits of 

violence with a knife. While the circuit court considered the 2006 incident in its analysis, it 

determined that the incident was too remote. 

¶ 13 C. Trial

¶ 14 At trial, Rosezita Whitehead testified that she lived at 8334 South Cottage Grove Avenue, 

Chicago, Illinois on November 6, 2016. At approximately 11:20 p.m., she heard a commotion 

outside the front of her building. From her window, she saw one man grab another man off his 

bicycle. Whitehead ran to grab her phone. When she returned, the two men where on the ground. 
1-22-1226 

-4- 

Whitehead described both men as black and older. She estimated that the man on top was 

approximately five feet, six inches to five feet, nine inches tall. During the entire encounter, the 

man on the bike was always on the bottom. The two men did not roll around, or change 

positions. Whitehead believed that the man on top leaned over and took something from the 

other man. The man on top walked away. The other man stayed on the ground, and he called out 

for help. Whitehead stopped recording, and she called the police.

¶ 15 The court admitted People’s Exhibit 3 into evidence. Whitehead identified People's 

Exhibit 3 as the video she recorded with her cellphone on November 6, 2016, at approximately 

11:20 p.m. In the video, a man with short grey hair wrestles with another man wearing a red 

jacket. The grey-haired man always remains on top. Throughout the video, the grey-haired man 

grabs the other man at the back right shoulder of his red jacket. At one point, the grey-haired 

man presses his head at the same position on the jacket.

¶ 16 On cross-examination, Whitehead admitted that she could not see either man’s face. She 

initially thought that the man on top wore a hat, but she later believed that he had “greyish” hair.

On redirect examination, Whitehead clarified that the man on the bicycle also wore a jacket. The 

grey-haired man grabbed the victim at the top portion of his jacket. 

¶ 17 Darrain Bowdry testified that he lived at 8334 South Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago, 

Illinois on November 6, 2016. At approximately 11:20 p.m., he heard a commotion outside the 

front of his building. By the time he looked outside, he saw one man walk away, and another 

man moaning on the ground. Both men were black and approximately in their 40s. He did not 

see the face of the man that walked away.

¶ 18 Detective Adrian Flores testified that on November 6, 2016, at around 11:20 p.m., he 

received a dispatch call for a battery in progress at 8334 South Cottage Grove Avenue. When he 
1-22-1226 

-5- 

arrived, other emergency personnel were already at the crime scene. The victim had been 

pronounced dead.

¶ 19 Detective Kevin Eberle testified that he and his partner, Detective Stanley Kalicki, 

responded to a homicide scene at 8334 South Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago, Illinois on 

November 7, 2016, at approximately 12:15 a.m. The deceased victim wore a red and grey jacket. 

Eberle later learned that the victim’s name was Kevin Faulkner.

¶ 20 Eberle spoke with Whitehead. Whitehead gave Eberle her cellphone so the police could 

obtain the video from it. From reviewing the video, he noticed that the offender was forcefully 

wrestling with the victim while on top of him. He also noticed the offender’s head by the 

victim’s upper right shoulder and upper right back area of the victim’s jacket. Additionally, the 

offender grabbed or pushed the victim’s jacket at the same position numerous times. Eberle 

reasonably believed that the offender may have transferred his DNA to that portion of the 

victim’s jacket. He submitted the jacket for DNA testing.

¶ 21 On cross-examination, Eberle acknowledged that there were no eyewitnesses who could 

identify the offender. Eberle bagged the victim’s hands to preserve potential DNA found under 

his fingernails. 

¶ 22 Prior to Christopher Warner testifying, the circuit court gave a limiting instruction that 

his testimony could only be considered for the limited purposes of modus operandi, identity, and 

intent. Warner testified that he was crossing the street when defendant walked up to him and 

stabbed him with a pocketknife. This incident took place at night on October 27, 2013, at 8633 

South Ingleside. Defendant stabbed him six to seven times. Defendant did not say anything, and 

he ran away after he stabbed Warner. Warner and defendant were neighbors. In 2013, 

defendant’s hair was short, cropped, and grey.
1-22-1226 

-6- 

¶ 23 Ponni Arunkumar, Chief Medical Examiner of Cook County, testified that the autopsy of 

Faulkner revealed that he had multiple sharp force injuries caused by a sharp instrument.

Arunkumar differentiated that incise wounds are superficial wounds while stab wounds are 

deeper wounds. In total, Faulkner sustained approximately seven sharp force injuries: five incise 

wounds, and two stab wounds. Additionally, Faulkner sustained a blunt force injury to his head. 

The stab wounds pierced the left and right ventricles of his heart. The stab wounds resulted in 

blood loss and blood accumulation around the heart. Faulkner’s injuries were consistent with 

injuries from a knife. The cause of death was multiple sharp force injuries, and the manner of 

death was homicide. The medical examiners also collected DNA samples from Faulkner in the 

form of a buccal swab, a blood card, and fingernail clippings.

¶ 24 Officer Anthony Cereceres testified that he happened to be around 8145 South Cottage 

Grove at night on January 3, 2014. He saw defendant who had short greyish hair, and was 

approximately five feet, five inches tall. 

¶ 25 Officer Kevin McCann testified that on September 12, 2019, at approximately 10:40 

a.m., he arrested defendant when defendant left his home located at 7552 South Colfax Avenue. 

He recovered silver pocketknife from defendant.

¶ 26 Scott Sigsworth, a forensic scientist, testified that he performed DNA analysis on 

evidence in this case. Faulkner’s fingernail clippings revealed a mixture of two DNA 

contributors. Sigsworth separated a major and minor DNA profile from the mixture. A major 

contributor contributes more DNA than a minor contributor. Faulkner was included as a potential 

donor of the major DNA profile. The minor profile was inclusive which meant it was not suitable 

for comparison.
1-22-1226 

-7- 

¶ 27 Sigsworth swabbed the upper right shoulder and back of the jacket for touch DNA. 

Touch DNA typically refers to DNA left behind when someone touches an item and leaves 

behind skin cells. The DNA analysis from the jacket revealed a mixture of two contributors: a 

major and a minor profile. Faulkner was included in the major profile. The minor profile was 

suitable for comparison. Sigsworth submitted the minor profile to a DNA database. The minor 

profile was associated with defendant. Based on the association, Sigsworth requested and 

received a buccal standard from defendant. Sigsworth generated a DNA profile from the buccal

standard that was suitable for comparison. He then compared the DNA profile from defendant 

with the minor DNA profile from the jacket. Defendant was included as a potential donor of the 

minor profile. The statistical frequency of the inclusion of defendant in the minor profile of the 

jacket was one in 2.8 septillion.

¶ 28 On cross-examination. Sigsworth acknowledged that he could not say how the DNA got 

on the jacket or when. DNA can persist on an item for a long time, in fact; the analysis in this 

case was performed over two years after the jacket was originally collected. Sigsworth agreed 

that DNA could be transferred from a person to an object and from that object onto another 

object or person. He referred to this form of DNA transfer as secondary transfer. He agreed that 

DNA could potentially transfer a third time. He referred to this form of DNA transfer as tertiary 

transfer. 

¶ 29 Sigsworth testified that he detected several genetic markers in the minor profile from the 

fingernail clippings. Defendant could not have contributed to those genetic markers. On redirect, 

Sigsworth stated that he did not consider the amount of DNA recovered from the jacket to be a 

small amount based on the amount recovered.
1-22-1226 

-8- 

¶ 30 Detective William Sullivan testified that on May 27, 2019, he was assigned to this case

since DNA analysis recently determined that the swab from the victim’s jacket belonged to 

defendant. Sullivan reviewed reports, reviewed defendant’s criminal history, reviewed videos 

that captured the incident, and reinterviewed witnesses. He did not find an association between 

the victim and defendant. After defendant was arrested, Sullivan obtained a search warrant to 

obtain a buccal swab from defendant.

¶ 31 On cross-examination, Sullivan acknowledged that none of the witnesses identified 

defendant, and that he was also not identified from any of the videos.

¶ 32 Jolanta Daisy testified that she happened to be near 8623 South Ingleside Avenue on 

August 9, 2010. She saw defendant who appeared to be a black male approximately five feet, 

five inches tall, with a short grey/black hairstyle.

¶ 33 The State rested. Defendant did not testify at trial. The defense did not present any 

evidence. Following closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. 

The circuit court sentenced defendant to 28 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 34 Defendant appealed.

¶ 35 ANALYSIS

¶ 36 A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶ 37 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt because the only evidence linking him to the crime was a minor DNA profile that could 

have been deposited through secondary or tertiary transfer. The State responds that the DNA 

profile recovered from the victim’s jacket established that defendant was the individual in the 

cellphone video. Additionally, the State argues that the jury already rejected defendant’s 
1-22-1226 

-9- 

argument that the DNA transferred onto the victim’s jacket through secondary or tertiary 

transfer.

¶ 38 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is “whether, after 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact 

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in 

original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). “This means the reviewing court must 

allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.” People v. 

Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). We shall not substitute our judgment for that of the 

fact finder on questions involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. 

People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 280-81 (2009). Additionally, we apply this standard 

regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. Id. at 281. “Circumstantial 

evidence is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction, provided that such evidence satisfies proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the crime charged.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 

330 (2000).

¶ 39 “A person commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts that cause a death, he or 

she either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to the victim or another individual, knows that 

the acts will cause the victim's or another's death, or knows the acts create a strong probability of 

death or great bodily harm to the victim or another.” People v. Joiner, 2018 IL App (1st) 150343, 

¶ 59; 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2016). Additionally, the State must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt the identity of the person who committed the crime (People v. Tomei, 2013 IL 

App (1st) 112632, ¶ 36), which may be established by circumstantial evidence (People v. 

Darrah, 18 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1022 (2nd Dist. 1974)). 
1-22-1226 

-10- 

¶ 40 Defendant argues that the State failed to establish that he was the individual who 

committed the murder since only circumstantial evidence links him to the murder—his DNA 

found on the victim’s jacket. He argues that the DNA could have been deposited through 

secondary or tertiary transfer. While the jury could have determined that defendant’s DNA 

deposited on the victim’s jacket through secondary or tertiary transfer, “[a] trier of fact is not 

required to disregard inferences that flow normally from the evidence before it, nor must the trier 

of fact search out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise those 

explanations to a level of reasonable doubt.” People v. Eubanks, 2019 IL 123525, ¶ 95. 

¶ 41 At trial, Eberle testified that, while reviewing the cellphone video, he noticed the 

offender’s head positioned by the victim’s upper right shoulder and upper right back area of the 

victim’s jacket. Additionally, he noticed the offender grabbed or pushed the victim on the same 

area of the jacket. Based on the video of the struggle, Eberle reasonably believed that the 

offender’s DNA was transferred to the victim’s jacket. He then submitted a request to the Illinois 

State Police Crime Lab to have that portion of the victim’s jacket tested for DNA.

¶ 42 Sigsworth testified that he performed the DNA analysis on the victim’s jacket. He 

swabbed the area of the upper right shoulder and back of the victim’s jacket. From swabbing the 

victim’s jacket, Sigsworth obtained a DNA profile suitable for testing. He submitted the profile 

to the national DNA database. The DNA profile was associated with defendant. According to 

that association, Sigsworth received defendant’s buccal standard which he used to generate a 

DNA profile suitable for comparison. He compared that profile to the minor profile collected 

from the victim’s jacket. Defendant was included as a potential donor of the minor profile. The 

statistical frequency of the inclusion was one in 2.8 septillion. Additionally, Sigsworth testified 
1-22-1226 

-11- 

that while he could not determine how the DNA got on the victim’s jacket, he did not consider 

the DNA recovered to be a small amount.

¶ 43 Allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of the State (Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d at 280), 

Eberle and Sigsworth’s testimony established that defendant was the one who attacked the victim 

in the cellphone video. Additionally, this conclusion was bolstered by witness testimony that 

described defendant as having short grey hair which matched the offender in the cellphone video. 

Accordingly, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the individual who 

attacked the victim in the cellphone video, and the jury’s verdict was not so unreasonable as to 

justify a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. People v. Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, 542 (1999) (we 

will only reverse a conviction where the evidence is so unreasonable as to justify a reasonable 

doubt of defendant’s guilt).

¶ 44 B. Other-Crimes Evidence

¶ 45 Defendant argues that the circuit court erred when it allowed the State to introduce other 

crimes evidence. The State responds that the other crimes evidence was relevant evidence of 

defendant’s modus operandi, identity, and intent.

¶ 46 Other crimes evidence is admissible if it is relevant for any purpose other than to show 

the defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. People v. Wilson, 214 Ill. 2d 127, 135 (2005). 

Thus, other crimes evidence is admissible to show modus operandi, intent, motive, identity, or 

absence of mistake. People v. Pikes, 2013 IL 115171, ¶ 11. “The circuit [court] must weigh the 

probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, and may exclude the evidence if its 

prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.” People v. Moss, 205 Ill. 2d 139, 

156 (2001). We review a circuit court’s decision whether to admit evidence for an abuse of 

discretion. People v. King, 2020 IL 123926, ¶ 35. “An abuse of discretion occurs only where the 
1-22-1226 

-12- 

[circuit] court court’s decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable to the degree that no 

reasonable person would agree with it.” People v. Rivera, 2013 IL 112467, ¶ 37. “Reversal is not 

appropriate under the abuse of discretion standard where reasonable minds can disagree about 

whether certain evidence is admissible.” People v. Sims, 2019 IL App (3d) 170417, ¶ 29.

¶ 47 “Prior crimes admitted under the modus operandi exception are viewed as circumstantial 

evidence of identity because crimes committed in a similar manner suggest a common offender 

‘and strengthen the identification of the defendant.’ ” People v. Moore, 2023 IL (1st) 211421, ¶ 

94 (quoting People v. Shief, 312 Ill. App. 3d 673, 681 (1st Dist. 2000)). “Where such evidence is 

offered to prove modus operandi, ‘there must be a high degree of similarity between the facts of 

the crime charged and the other offenses in which the defendant was involved.’ ” Shief, 312 Ill. 

App. 3d at 681 (quoting People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 352. 372-73). “This high degree of 

similarity is necessary because proving identity under a theory of modus operandi involves 

reliance on an inference that a distinctive pattern of criminal activity earmarks the crimes as the 

work of a particular individual***.” People v. Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d 53, 65 (1995). “Even if no 

particular distinctive feature is present, ‘a sufficient number of common features can form a 

distinctive combination sufficient to establish the existence of modus operandi.’ ” Moore, 2023 

IL (1st) 211421, ¶ 94 (quoting People v. Hansen, 313 Ill. App. 3d 491, 506 (1st Dist. 2000). 

“While there must be a persuasive showing of similarity, the test is not one of ‘exact, rigorous 

identity,’ since ‘some dissimilarity will always exist between independent crimes.’ ” Shief, 312 

Ill. App. 3d at 681 (quoting Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d at 65). “[R]ather, it is the similarity of the 

conduct as a whole, not the uniqueness of any single factor, which is the key to establishing 

modus operandi.” People v. Colin, 344 Ill. App. 3d 119, 127
1-22-1226 

-13- 

¶ 48 Here, defendant’s stabbing of Warner, the only prior crime evidence admitted at trial, 

contained enough common features with the stabbing in this case. See Robinson, 167 Ill. 2d at 

65-66. Both incidents took place on a public street on the south side of Chicago at night. In both 

instances, defendant, with little discernable provocation, stabbed the victim approximately seven 

times with a knife before fleeing the scene. We recognize that there are some differences 

between the two stabbing incidents. However, a “persuasive showing of similarity” does not 

require “exact, rigorous identity,” since “some dissimilarity will always exist between 

independent crimes.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shief, 312 Ill. App. 3d at 681.

Additionally, while the State only admitted one instance of other-crimes evidence, the circuit 

court compared a total of four incidents. The four incidents indicated a pattern by defendant that 

he resorted to stabbing with little discernable provocation. Moreover, while reasonable minds 

may disagree with the circuit court’s decision to admit the other crimes evidence (Sims, 2019 IL 

App (3d) 170417, ¶ 29), it was not so unreasonable that no reasonable person would agree with it 

(Rivera, 2013 IL 112467, ¶ 37). Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it 

admitted the other-crimes evidence under the modus operandi exception. Wilson, 214 Ill. 2d at 

135 (other-crimes evidence is admissible if for any purpose other than propensity). 

¶ 49 Assuming, arguendo, the circuit court erred when it admitted the other-crimes evidence, 

it did not prejudice defendant. “The improper introduction of other-crimes evidence is harmless 

error when a defendant is neither prejudiced nor denied a fair trial because of its admission.” 

Sims, 2019 IL App (3d) 170417, ¶ 30. “An error in admitting other-crimes evidence is harmless 

if there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Id. 

¶ 50 The State sought to introduce the other-crimes evidence on a modus operandi theory to 

bolster its proof that defendant attacked Faulkner in the cellphone video. Above, we concluded 
1-22-1226 

-14- 

that there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant was the individual in the cellphone 

video. Supra, ¶¶ 39-42. Accordingly, although the circuit court did not err when it admitted the 

other-crimes evidence, the admission of the evidence was harmless.

¶ 51 C. Investigative Alert

¶ 52 Defendant argues that the State violated his Illinois constitutional right against 

unreasonable seizures by arresting him pursuant to an investigative alert. The State responds that 

the police lawfully arrested defendant because they had probable cause.

¶ 53 There is a split of authority within this district as to the constitutionality of a warrantless 

arrest made pursuant to an investigative alert issued upon a detective’s determination of probable 

cause. Two opinions of this court have determined that such an arrest violates the search and 

seizure clause of article I, section 6 of the Illinois Constitution. See People v. Smith, 2022 IL 

App (1st) 190691; People v. Bass, 2019 IL App (1st) 160640, aff’d in part and vacated in part, 

2021 IL 125434. Other decisions in this district have held that an arrest pursuant to an 

investigative alert is constitutionally permissible if supported by probable cause. See People v. 

Wimberly, 2023 IL App (1st) 220809, ¶ 26; People v. Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, ¶¶ 61-

64; People v. Simmons, 2020 IL App (1st) 170560, ¶ 64; People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 

170753, 45-50 ¶¶; People v. Braswell, 2019 IL App (1st) 172810, ¶¶ 36-39. 

¶ 54 Our supreme court has not yet issued a decision deciding this constitutional question. 

However, we need not take a position in this particular case as to the constitutionality of the 

defendant’s arrest. This is because, even assuming arguendo there was a constitutional violation, 

the resulting admission of evidence was harmless error. This court has explained:

 “Harmless error review applies where a constitutional violation leads to erroneous 

admission of evidence. [Citation.] The test is whether it appears beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the error at issue did not contribute to the verdict obtained at trial.

[Citation.] When determining whether an error is harmless, a reviewing court may, 
1-22-1226 

-15- 

(1) focus on the error to determine whether it might have contributed to the 

conviction; (2) examine the other properly admitted evidence to determine whether it 

might have contributed to the conviction; or (3) determine whether the improperly 

admitted evidence is merely cumulative or duplicates properly admitted evidence. 

[Citation.] [O]n harmless error review, the question is not what the jury could have 

done but what the jury would have done absent the improperly admitted evidence. 

[Citation.]” (Emphasis in original.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Smith, 2022 

IL App (1st) 190691, ¶ 103.

 

¶ 55 In this case, the admitted evidence derived from defendant’s arrest consists of his 

pocketknife. Defendant argues that the admission of the pocketknife was not harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt given that the State’s case relied on weak circumstantial evidence—his DNA 

found on defendant’s jacket. In essence, defendant reiterates his sufficiency of the evidence 

argument. 

¶ 56 We previously concluded that the DNA and video evidence established beyond a 

reasonable doubt that defendant was the one who attacked the victim in the cellphone video. 

Supra, ¶¶ 39-42. As that evidence strongly supported the jury’s verdict, we cannot conclude that 

the jury would have acted differently without the admission of the pocketknife. That is, we are 

convinced the verdict would have been the same, regardless of the evidence obtained from the 

arrest. In turn, we reject defendant’s challenge based on the use of an investigative alert. 

¶ 57 CONCLUSION

¶ 58 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 59 Affirmed.