2019 IL App (1st) 171619-U

No. 1-17-1619 

Order filed December 13, 2019 

Sixth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party 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. 

JOSE GREEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 14 CR 12420 

Honorable 

Stanley J. Sacks, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the court. 

 Presiding Justice Mikva and Justice Cunningham concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We affirm defendant’s convictions for criminal sexual assault and aggravated 

criminal sexual abuse over his contention that the trial court abused its discretion 

in admitting other-crimes evidence. 

¶ 2 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of five counts of criminal sexual assault 

and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. He was sentenced to a total of 25 1⁄2 years in 

prison: consecutive four and a half year terms for each count of criminal sexual assault, and 

concurrent three-year terms on each count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, to be served 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 2 - 

consecutively to his sentences for criminal sexual assault. On appeal, defendant contends that the 

trial court abused its discretion by admitting other-crimes evidence. We affirm. 

¶ 3 Defendant was charged by indictment with 10 counts of criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 

5/11-1.20(a)(1) (West 2012); 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(4) (West 2012)) and 18 counts of aggravated 

criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(c)(1)(ii) (West 2012); 720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(d) (West 

2012); 720 ILCS 5/11-1.60(f) (West 2012)). The counts alleged that on and between March 31, 

2013, and May 26, 2014, defendant committed various sexual acts on K.P. 

¶ 4 Prior to trial, the State filed a written motion to admit evidence of two prior instances where

defendant was accused of committing sexual acts on children to establish absence of mistake, 

intent, and to show the circumstances of defendant’s arrest. 

¶ 5 Defendant objected to the State’s motion, arguing in a written response that the additional 

allegations were not sufficiently similar to the charges and that their probative value was 

outweighed by their prejudicial effect. 

¶ 6 At the hearing on the motion, the State represented that on December 26, 2004, defendant 

placed his tongue in his then two-year-old niece’s mouth, licked her face, and told her to “suck his 

penis” while she was at his home on South Lamon Avenue. The victim, G.S., disclosed this 

information to her mother and again at a hospital, but did not do so to a victim sensitive interviewer. 

The State also represented that between 1996 and 1997, defendant took K.C., his then six-year-old 

niece, into a back room at his Lamon address and touched her vagina over her clothes. On another 

occasion, defendant attempted to place K.C.’s hand on his penis and offered her a dollar to touch 

his penis. K.C. informed her mother and the police about defendant’s conduct on February 13, 

2005, while they investigated G.S.’s allegations. The State argued these uncharged instances were 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 3 - 

admissible because they occurred in the same location and involved minor females with familial 

relations to defendant. 

¶ 7 The defense argued that the other allegations against defendant were not prosecuted and 

that admitting them would force them to defend against multiple charges, confuse the trier of fact, 

and greatly prejudice defendant. 

¶ 8 The trial court clarified that the State was moving to admit the evidence pursuant to section 

115-7.3 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 2016)), noting that 

the correct standard is whether the prejudicial effect of the other-crimes evidence substantially 

outweighs its probative value. The court then found that G.S.’s allegations were not probative of 

defendant’s propensity to commit sex crimes against young girls because they were “too 

speculative” where she denied the allegations to some people during the investigation. However,

the court found that K.C.’s allegations, although older, were more probative of defendant’s 

propensity to commit the current offense because they occurred at the same location and involved 

someone in a familial-type relationship with him. 

¶ 9 At trial, K.P., who was born on February 4, 2000, testified that she refers to her mother’s 

boyfriend, Erick Gregg, as “dad.” K.P. met defendant, Gregg’s father, in 2007. She identified 

defendant in court as her stepfather’s father. Prior to defendant’s wife’s passing in January 2013, 

K.P. only saw defendant on special occasions. After she passed, defendant told K.P. he was lonely 

and asked for help around his house. K.P. began spending time with defendant, who contacted her 

by calling Gregg or her mother and would pick K.P. up in his vehicle to bring her to his home. 

¶ 10 On March 30, 2013, K.P. and her cousins slept over at defendant’s home. The next night, 

K.P.’s cousins left, but defendant asked K.P. to spend another night with him. K.P. planned to
No. 1-17-1619 

- 4 - 

sleep on a futon in the study, but defendant asked her to sleep in bed with him. K.P. awoke in the 

night to defendant rubbing her vagina over her clothes. She told him to stop, which he did after a 

couple of minutes. The next day, defendant apologized to K.P. saying she could not tell anyone 

what happened because it would “ruin the family,” which was the only family he had after his wife 

passed, and he would kill himself. 

¶ 11 A couple of weeks later, defendant asked K.P. to sleep over in his bed. In the night, 

defendant touched K.P.’s vagina under her clothes, “rubbing and fingering” her. The next day, 

defendant again asked K.P. not to tell anyone, adding “that it was okay because [they] weren’t 

related by blood,” and “he was teaching [her] and nobody else could teach [her] what he taught 

[her].” 

¶ 12 Two weeks later, K.P. again slept at defendant’s house. While she was sitting on the bed, 

defendant pushed her onto her stomach, pulled her pants and underwear off, removed his pants, 

told her to be quiet, and put his penis into her vagina. Defendant put one arm on K.P.’s breast and 

the other on her mouth. K.P. tried but was unable to move defendant off her. K.P. recalled that this 

interaction “hurt really bad.” Afterwards, defendant brought K.P. into the bathroom, took an “ear 

wax bulb” out of his medicine cabinet, filled it with water, and told K.P. to rinse her vagina with 

it so that she would not get pregnant. K.P. used the bulb as he directed and noticed that her vagina 

was bleeding. She identified the State’s Exhibit 1 as the “pump” she used at defendant’s house. 

K.P. did not sleep that night. The next day, defendant repeated that K.P. could not tell anyone what 

happened because it would ruin the family and he would kill himself. 

¶ 13 Over the next year, K.P. went to defendant’s home 30 to 40 times. Defendant had moved 

to an apartment on North Maplewood Avenue. On those occasions, defendant placed his penis 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 5 - 

inside K.P.’s vagina and mouth and his mouth on K.P.’s vagina and breasts. K.P. regularly used 

the ear wax kit. One day, defendant told K.P. to fill the bulb “with Coke Cola because Coke Cola 

kills sperm.” 

¶ 14 On May 26, 2014, K.P., for the first time ever, called defendant to ask if she could use his 

Sam’s Club card to purchase candy for a fundraiser. On the way home, defendant took his 

uncircumcised penis out of his pants, began rubbing it, pulled up K.P.’s dress, and placed his finger 

in her vagina. After that date, K.P. did not spend any time alone with defendant at his home. K.P. 

did not tell anyone about these incidents. 

¶ 15 On June 10, 2014, K.P. skipped school for the first time because the night before she was 

very sad and “had a bad dream that it happened again.” On June 11, 2014, a dean at K.P.’s school 

said he noticed a change in her and asked what was going on. K.P. “wanted to tell somebody about 

what was happening so [she] chose to tell him.” K.P.’s school called her mom, who K.P. did not 

want to tell about the abuse because she knew it would hurt her. 

¶ 16 On cross-examination, K.P. testified that she did not know what kind of relationship Gregg

had with defendant, but noted that they worked together and she thought they were close. K.P. did 

not know of any fighting going on between members of her family. She explained that around the 

time that she skipped school, she was hanging out with some older people, which defendant told 

her not to because she “was obligated to him.” 

¶ 17 On redirect examination, K.P. testified that she did not make up this story about defendant 

in order to avoid getting in trouble for missing school. She stated that she is afraid of defendant, 

and that on the day that she called defendant to go to Sam’s Club she thought that her dad would 

come with her. 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 6 - 

¶ 18 K.P.’s mother, Alicia Scott, testified that defendant always contacted her and asked for 

K.P. to come over. Scott did not initiate these stays. 

¶ 19 On cross-examination, Scott testified that K.P. stayed at defendant’s house once prior to 

his wife’s passing. K.P. went to defendant’s house more than once a month and defendant 

sometimes took her shopping. Scott did not notice any changes in K.P. during this time, nor did 

she notice any inappropriate behavior between defendant and K.P. 

¶ 20 Dawn Marie Cicero, a registered nurse, testified that on June 12, 2014, she treated K.P, 

who told her that she had been “sexually penetrated by her mother’s boyfriend’s father from March 

31, 2013 to February, 2014,” and was “fondled on Memorial Day.” Cicero described K.P. as 

“withdrawn but matter of fact about what happened.” A sexual assault kit was not administered to 

K.P. because too much time had passed from the time of the assault. 

¶ 21 Detective Anthony Noradin testified that on June 30, 2014, he executed a search warrant 

at a residence on Maplewood with the purpose of finding a cellphone and an ear wax removal kit. 

Noradin found the kit in the bathroom medicine cabinet. 

¶ 22 Steven Swain, an evidence technician, testified that he went to the Maplewood address to 

photograph the medicine cabinet and ear wax removal kit. After taking photographs, Swain, 

wearing gloves, placed the ear wax removal kit inside a paper bag and brought it to a police facility, 

sealed it, and assigned it an inventory number. The evidence was picked up by the evidence 

coordinator. 

¶ 23 The State entered stipulations that Exhibits 6 and 7 show that buccal swabs from defendant 

and K.P. were properly collected, sent to Forensic Services, inventoried according to procedure, 

transported for testing, and that a proper chain of custody was maintained. 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 7 - 

¶ 24 Elizabeth Zawicki, a forensic scientist, testified that she performed three different tests for 

semen on the ear wax bulb and the tests were positive. On cross-examination, Zawicki testified 

that there was no way to tell when the semen was deposited. On redirect examination, Zawicki 

testified that it was possible the semen was deposited within the last few years. 

¶ 25 Angela Kaeshamer, a forensic scientist, completed a “differential extraction” on the ear

wax bulb, finding that K.P. could not be excluded from the major female DNA profile and stated 

that the chance a random person would have that DNA profile is “one in 3.9 quintillion black, one 

in 16 quintillion white, or one in 1 sextillion Hispanic unrelated individuals.” Defendant could not 

be excluded from the minor male DNA profile and she stated that the chance a random person 

would have that DNA profile is “one in 73 million black, one in 23 million white, or one in 28 

million Hispanic unrelated individuals.” 

¶ 26 On cross-examination, Kaeshamer explained that DNA can be transferred in many ways, 

could remain through cleanings, and that her tests did not indicate how or when the DNA got on 

the bulb. 

¶ 27 On redirect examination, Kaeshamer testified that if the semen on the bulb was not from 

defendant, she would have expected another male profile in the DNA data, which there was not. 

¶ 28 K.C. testified that she and her family used to live next to defendant and would see him a 

couple times a week. When K.C. was around six or seven years old, defendant began asking her 

to go into the “back room.” There, he would pick her up between her legs, hold her in the air, and 

rub her vagina over her clothes. Other times, defendant grabbed K.C.’s hand to try to force her to 

touch his penis and offered her a dollar to do so. When K.C. was 15 years old, she told her mother 

about these incidents. 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 8 - 

¶ 29 On cross-examination, K.C. testified that she does not remember the exact dates of these 

incidents. Defendant never invited K.C. over alone, threatened to kill himself, or said that the 

family would break apart if she told anyone about the incidents. The State rested.

¶ 30 The defense stipulated that Detective Noelia Herrera interviewed K.P. and authored a 

report that did not include K.P.’s allegation that defendant told her that he did not want her hanging 

out with other men out of obligation to him or that he told her to clean herself with cola. The 

defense entered into stipulation that Detective Arlen Pietrowski interviewed K.C. and authored a 

report that did not include K.C.’s allegation that defendant threw her in the air or performed sexual 

acts while her family was in the house. 

¶ 31 Defendant testified that Gregg was upset with how defendant distributed his late wife’s 

property and life insurance policy proceeds and with who defendant dated. Gregg or K.P. initiated 

K.P.’s visits to defendant’s home, which became more frequent because she liked going to church 

with him. Defendant treated K.P. as a grandchild. He denied ever touching her inappropriately, 

specifically stating that she did not sleep over alone on the weekend of March 30, 2013, that he 

did not touch himself or her during their trip to Sam’s Club, and that he did not tell her to use the 

ear wax bulb to clean herself. He explained that he has masturbated in the bathroom where the 

bulb was kept and then washed his hands in the sink. 

¶ 32 On June 10, 2014, Gregg told defendant that K.P. was missing so defendant went with 

Gregg to look for her. Prior to this incident, defendant had concerns about who K.P. was hanging 

out with “[b]ecause they were well over high school age and she was only 13.” Defendant’s 

concerns caused tension in his relationship with Gregg. 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 9 - 

¶ 33 Defendant denied that he was ever alone with K.C., offered her money to touch his penis, 

threw her in the air, or grabbed her vagina. Defendant said K.C.’s allegations, which Gregg was 

aware of, “ripped [his family] apart a little bit,” and greatly upset his wife. 

¶ 34 The jury found defendant guilty on five counts of criminal sexual assault and two counts

of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict, relying on his objection to the court’s admission of other-crimes

evidence. The court denied defendant’s motions and sentenced him to 25 1⁄2 years in prison. 

¶ 35 On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed K.C. to testify 

about her allegations against him. Defendant argues that the trial court did not conduct the 

meaningful assessment required prior to admitting other-crimes evidence because it focused on 

minimally relevant similarities between the past crime and the charged offense without considering 

the unfair prejudice the evidence posed to him. 

¶ 36 Under the common law, other-crimes evidence is generally inadmissible to demonstrate a 

defendant’s propensity to commit the charged crime. People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 170

(2003). This is not because it is irrelevant; rather, it is because it may lure the trier of fact into 

convicting a defendant based on past behavior and a defendant is entitled to have his verdict

determined solely based on the charged crime. Id. Other-crimes evidence is admissible to prove 

intent, identity, motive, absence of mistake, and modus operandi. Id. Even if the other-crimes 

evidence is offered for a permissible purpose, it will not be admitted if its prejudicial impact 

substantially outweighs its probative value. Id. Other-crimes evidence, or prior bad acts evidence, 

encompasses misconduct that may not rise to the level of a criminal offense. People v. McSwain, 

2012 IL App (4th) 100619, ¶ 35. 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 10 - 

¶ 37 The Illinoislegislature created an exception to the common law bar against the use of othercrimes evidence to show propensity in cases where, as here, a defendant is accused of criminal 

sexual assault. Pursuant to section 115-7.3 of the Code, evidence of certain other sex offenses is 

admissible to prove a defendant’s propensity to commit the charged sex offense so long as the

probative value of the evidence outweighs its undue prejudicial impact. 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 

2016). This section provides: 

 “(c) In weighing the probative value of the evidence against undue prejudice to the 

defendant, the court may consider: 

(1) the proximity in time to the charged or predicate offense;

 (2) the degree of factual similarity to the charged or predicate offense; or 

(3) other relevant facts and circumstances.” 

Id. 

¶ 38 We will not reverse the trial court’s decision to admit other-crimes evidence absent an 

abuse of discretion. Donoho, 2014. Ill 2d at 182. Under this highly deferential standard of review, 

a trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or so unreasonable that no 

rational person would adopt the same view. Id. 

¶ 39 Here, because the trial court appropriately weighed the proximity in time, factual similarity, 

and relevant circumstances between the two offenses, we find that it did not abuse its discretion. 

Prior to ruling on the State’s motion to admit testimony from G.S. and K.C., the court first pointed 

out the correct standard for admissibility of other crimes evidence. The court then analyzed the 

underlying facts and circumstances of the previous allegations against defendant. In doing so, the 

court considered the inconsistency in G.S.’s allegations and determined they should not be 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 11 - 

admitted. Turning to K.C.’s allegations, the court noted that, although they were older than G.S.’s, 

they took place at the same location and similarly involved a familial relationship as the current 

offense. In keeping out G.S.’s testimony but admitting K.C.’s, the court clearly demonstrated its 

consideration of the prejudicial impact of the evidence, limiting it to the most probative of 

defendant’s propensity to commit the charged offense. 

¶ 40 The record shows that there were several similarities between K.C.’s and K.P.’s 

experiences with defendant. Both girls had familial-type relations to defendant: K.C. was 

defendant’s niece and K.P. was treated as his granddaughter. Both girls were below consenting 

age at the time of defendant inappropriately interacted with them: K.C. was six or seven years old 

and K.P. was 13 years old. Moreover, both girls alleged that defendant initiated sexual contact 

with them by rubbing their vaginas over their clothes, which occurred at defendant’s home address 

while defendant was alone with them. Given this record, we cannot say that the court’s decision is 

arbitrary, fanciful, or so unreasonable that no rational person would adopt the same view. See id.

¶ 41 Nevertheless, defendant argues the trial court improperly admitted K.C.’s testimony. First, 

he notes the time gap between K.C.’s allegations and the charged offense. We consider the 

proximity in time between a past crime and the charged offense on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 183.

While the probative value of other-crimes evidence may decrease with the passage of time (see id.

at 184), “the admissibility of other-crimes evidence should not, and indeed cannot, be controlled 

solely by the number of years that have elapsed between the prior offense and the crime charged.” 

People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 370 (1991). Courts have found decades-old other-crimes evidence 

admissible where it is sufficiently credible and probative. See, e.g., Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 184 (12 

to 15 years between the offenses); People v. Smith, 2015 IL App (4th) 130205, ¶ 29 (12 to 18 years 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 12 - 

between the offenses); People v. Davis, 260 Ill. App. 3d 176, 192 (1994) (over 20 years between 

the offenses). 

¶ 42 In this case, K.C.’s incidents with defendant happened more than a decade before K.P.’s 

incidents. However, K.C.’s allegations contained specific details concerning defendant’s acts and 

remained consistent, thus making them credible and probative. As such, the incidents with K.C.

were not too remote to be admissible. 

¶ 43 Defendant next argues that the other-crimes evidence was too factually dissimilar to be 

admissible because K.C. was only six or seven when she was touched inappropriately by defendant

and K.P. was 13 or 14 when she was assaulted by him. Other-crimes evidence must have some 

threshold level of similarity to the charged offense. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 184. As the factual 

similarities between the other-crimes evidence and the charged offense increase, so does its

relevance and probative value. Id. Conversely, as the factual dissimilarities increase, so does the 

prejudicial effect. People v. Johnson, 406 Ill. App. 3d 805, 811 (2010). Where other-crimes 

evidence is not offered to prove modus operandi, only general areas of similarity suffice to support 

its admissibility. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d at 184. 

¶ 44 Here, K.C. was defendant’s actual niece, while K.P. was treated as defendant’s 

granddaughter, both victims were young girls, and both assaults involved defendant touching the 

victims’ vaginas over their clothes and occurred at defendant’s home when he was able to be alone 

with them. Therefore, even if every factual detail between the assaults is not identical, the 

similarities are enough to support the court’s decision to admit K.C.’s testimony. See id. at 185 

(“[t]he existence of some differences between the prior offense and the current charge does not 

defeat admissibility because no two independent crimes are identical”); e.g., People v. Cerda, 2014 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 13 - 

IL App (1st) 120484, ¶¶ 189-90 (affirming admittance although prior offense did not involve 

intercourse and offense at issue did); People v. Braddy, 2015 IL App (5th) 130354, ¶ 41 (affirming 

admittance although prior offense involved intercourse and offense at issue did not). 

¶ 45 Last, defendant points out that K.C.’s allegations were never prosecuted. However, Illinois 

courts have repeatedly admitted other-crimes evidence involving only uncharged allegations. See, 

e.g., People v. Arze, 2016 IL App (1st) 131959, ¶ 101 (noting that Illinois courts have “found the 

admission of other-crimes evidence to be proper regardless of any conviction or charges relating 

to the offenses in the other-crimes evidence”); Braddy, 2015 IL App (5th) 130354, ¶ 43; People v. 

Nelson, 2013 IL App (1st) 102619, ¶ 45. 

¶ 46 Moreover, we briefly note that, even if K.C.’s testimony was improperly admitted, the error 

was harmless. “[I]mproper introduction of other-crimes evidence is harmless error when a 

defendant is neither prejudiced nor denied a fair trial based upon its admission.” People v. 

Nieves, 193 Ill. 2d 513, 530 (2000). Excluding K.C.’s testimony, the State presented ample 

evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. K.P. gave detailed

accounts of defendant’s assaults on her. People v. Gray, 2017 IL 120958, ¶ 36 (“The testimony of 

a single witness is sufficient to convict if the testimony is positive and credible, even where it is 

contradicted by the defendant.”). In addition, K.P. testified that defendant instructed her to use the 

ear wax removal kit’s bulb to clean his sperm from inside her vagina. This account was 

corroborated through the State’s witnesses. Noradin testified that he found the ear wax removal 

kit in the bathroom medicine cabinet, Zawicki testified that the kit’s bulb tested positive for semen, 

and Kaeshamer testified that K.P. and defendant fit the DNA profiles found on the bulb. Because 
No. 1-17-1619 

- 14 - 

of this overwhelming evidence, K.C.’s testimony neither prejudiced defendant nor denied him a 

fair trial, and thus, any error in admitting it was harmless. See Nieves, 193 Ill. 2d at 530. 

¶ 47 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 

¶ 48 Affirmed.