FIRST DIVI SION NOVEMBER 26, 2007

No. 1-06- 2667 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) v. ) No. 03 CR 16482 ) JAM ES SIPP, ) Ho no r ab le ) James D . E gan, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CERO BE RTE. G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Foll owing a jury trial in the ci rcuit court o f Cook County, def endan t James Sipp
wasconv i cted of the f i rst-deg ree m urder of Dem etri ck W ri ght a nd s en tenc ed to 45 y

ears in the Ill in ois Departm

ent of Corrections. Def

endan t’s postt rial

motion f or a new trial
was denied . O n app eal, defend ant ar gue s t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by (1 ) d enying defen dant’s requests f

or an in volun tary m ansl aughter in struction and (2) f

or a seconddegree murder instruct ion, (3) denyi ng defen dant’s Batson mo t io n, ( 4) r efu sing t o pe rmit defend ant ’s sist er t o t est ify at t rial, a nd ( 5) sus t aining cer t ain objec t ions mad e by the St at e w it h no ar t icu lat ed ba sis fo rt ho se o bje ct io ns. We affir m. BACK GROUND On Ju ne 8, 200 3, defend ant ’s se ven- year- old dau ght er , Ja cinta Sipp , w as r iding he rbic ycle in t he vic init y o f de fen da nt ’s ho me, lo ca t ed o n N o r t h Mo nt ice llo Ave nu e in Ch i cago. De f

endan t sat on the porch

of h i s home whi l e hi s da

ugh ter rode her b i cy

cle. Defend ant t est ifi

ed t hat as he obs er ved his d aug ht er , a n acq uaint ance fro m theNo. 1-06- 2667

2

neighbo rho od , k now n only t o d efenda nt as K. Y. , a ppr oa ched and a dvised him that t he vi ctim had n ot ic ed Jaci

nta ridi ng he r bicy cl e and stated, “[S]omethi ng ba d mi ght happen to her.” Defend ant t est ifi

ed t hat he inte rp re t ed t he vict im’s sta t ement t o be a t hre at t o t he saf ety of h is daughter. Defen

dant knew the v

ictim because defen dant’s sister, Keana, ha

d dated hi m s everal ye ars earlie

r. Defen dant testif ie d that he too k the vi

ctim ’s threat
ser iou sly becaus e t he vict im had beat en his sist er dur ing t hat re latio nship. One be at ing le d to Kean

a’s h ospitaliz ation. Def

endan t also stated that t he v

ictim was a known drug dealer, and he bel

iev ed the victim

carried a fi

rearm and was dangerous. Soon the reaf ter, de f en da nt d rov e h i s daugh ter to T en ne ss ee , tak

i ng he r out of scho ol t o d o s o. Defend ant imm ediat ely dro ve bac k t o C hicago and t hen de par t ed o n a j ob f or a mov i n g c om pa n y . A cou pl e of da y s l ate r, def en da n t re tur n ed to Ch i ca go to work a shi

f t at hi s se cond

j ob at a l ocal ha rdwar e store. Def endan t testi f i ed th at he

cus tomar i l y carri ed a f i rearm i n h i s ca r f or protecti on. He t es t ified t ha t his w o rk a s a mo ve rfr eq ue nt ly t o o k h im o ut o f t o wn an d h e w as us ua lly paid in ca sh. T he firea rm wa s a se mi aut omat ic 9- mil lim et er , w ith a 1 7- ro und mag azine that wa s f ull on Ju ne 12, 200 3. Defend ant left his ho me bet wee n 10 a nd 11 p. m. o n June 12, 200 3. Upo n dr iving away from hi s residence, def

endan t o bserved the vi

ctim and sev eral others n

ear a l ocal liquo r st or e. Angelica B ar ber , G ar y You ng, Jo hn Po well, a nd Re nar do Gr ay wer e amo ng t hos e in the co mpany of t he vict im. Defend ant t est ifi ed t hat upo n see ing t he vict im heNo. 1-06- 2667

3

f orm ul ate d a pl an to “ se n d s om e w ar n i n g sh ots to l et th

em kn ow th at [ h e] wa s wi l l i

n g to pr otect [h i s] f am i l y .”He testi f i ed th at h e w as goi n g to f i rewa rn i n g sh ots to de

mon strate t hat he and his famil

y were not go ing t o mo ve o r be sca re d o ut of t he neighbo rho od by the v i cti m or hi s f ri ends. Defe ndan t t hen drove in to the parkin

g lot of the liquor store, exited his veh ic le
an d u nsu cc es sfu lly at t emp t ed t o lo ca t e t he vic t im. H e t he n r et ur ne d t o his a ut o mo bile
an d d rove a rou n d th e b l ock i n to an al l ey , loca ted b eh i n d th e l i qu or s tore , w est of

Nor th Monticell o. D efendan

t par ked his v

ehicle i n the all ey, exi ted, to ok a few steps east t o wa r d M o nt ice llo , an d v isu ally l o ca t ed t he vic t im. Ac co r di ng t o de fe nd an t ’s t es t imo ny, the v i cti m wasto the eas

t of the al l ey, f aci ng n orth, wi th h i s lef t si de to def

endan t. Def endan t was to the

wes t of the

vi cti m . De fen da nt fire d fo ur sho t s in t he ge ne r al d ire ct io n o f t he vic t im and t he o t he r s in de fen da nt ’s co mpa ny. Ang elic a B ar be rwa s s ho t in t he ar m, an d t he vic t im wa s s ho t in the b ack. Th

e vi cti m di ed f rom th e gun shot wound. Th

e corone r’sf i ndi ngs were st ipulat ed t o a t t rial. T he co ro ner fou nd t hat a single bu llet ent er ed t he r ight side o f the vi ctim ’s b ack and ex

ited hi s torso through the lef

t side of hi s ches t more than two inch

es higher than where it entered. The coro ner found that “[t ]here [was] no evidence of close range f ire.” The coro ner al so found that the vi ctim ’s b lood alc ohol level was m ore t han 10% at t he tim

e of the sh

oot in g. Defend ant t est ifi

ed a s follo ws o n dire ct examinat ion: “Q. And do you aim

at anyone when y

ou fire these four shots.No. 1-06- 2667

4 A. No. Q. Whe r e d o yo u fir e t he fo ur sho t s fr o m? A. I fired t he sho t s -- As I’ m fi ring t he sho t s I’ m moving
aw ay . I don’ t even

rai se m y gun . I f i re th e shots f rom the si deof my bo dy. Q. An

d do y ou ai m an y wh ere i n pa rtic ular wh en you shoot o r -

- A. Off

to the righ

t o f the crowd. Q. An

d why do you ai m of f to the righ

t o f the crowd? A. Just bec aus e I j ust wa nted to scare them.” On cross-exami

nation, defendant testifi

ed as foll ows: “Q. You pointed a gun i n hi s general direction and y

ou pulled the tr igger not o nce, not t wice, not t hree times , but four times , cor re ct? A. That is c orre ct. On re-direct, d efendan

t t estifi ed as foll ows: “Q. Wh

en y ou fi red that gun were you poin ting at that group? A. No. Q. Wh

ere were y

ou pointin

g in relation to where those f

our people were standi

ng? A. Of

f to th e ri gh

t.No. 1-06- 2667

5 Q. W h y di d y ou p oi n t of f to th e ri gh

t? A. Be ca us e I jus t wa nt ed t o sc ar e ‘ em. Q. Were y

ou t ryi ng to hit any

one? A. No.
*** Q. Did y

ou see wh at an y of them were doi ng as y ou were shooting? A. No. Defe ndan t t hereaf ter ran and reentered hi

s automobile

bef ore drivi ng off . He testifi

ed that he di d not obs erve the

vi cti m f al l or whe ther a ny one i n the group h

ad b een shot. Fo re nsic invest igat or Car l Bras ic fou nd t wo fired 9 -mill imeter car t ridg e ca ses in t he street. One cartridge was approxi ma tely seven feet north of the v

ictim and the other was
nex t t o t he v ictim ’s l eg. Afte r t he sho ot ing, d efenda nt so ld t he firea rm t o “s ome g uy” fo r $ 90 be cau se he “didn’t want anything t o d o w ith t his gun a nymore .” Defend ant also t est ifi ed t hat he abandoned the auto mobi

le h e used that night at Full

erto n and Lockwoo d, because he also
wa n ted n othi n g f ur th er to do w i th i t. Gray l ater identifi

ed defe ndan t as the man

who exi ted the whi

te, four-do or Buick Regal on the ni ght of the sh

oot in g with a gun when h

e spoke to police, when

he gav e a st at ement t o As sist ant St at e’s At t or ney (AS A) D iBened et t o o n June 15, 200 3, when he testifi ed bef ore t he grand jury on J

uly 16, 2003, and at tr ia

l. Gray testifi ed at tr ia l thatNo. 1-06- 2667

6

when d efenda nt exite d fro m his vehicle with his firea rm, he was able t o o bser ve t hat t he ha ndg un h ad a m etal attach men t that he ass um ed to be a sc ope. Jo hn Po well, w ho w as w ith G ra y on t he eve ning o f June 1 2, 200 3, t est ifi ed t hat he
wasdrun k an d repe atedl

y ass erted that he

did not rem

em ber the e vents of that ev en i ng. However, he later admi

tt ed that he had gi

ven a signed statemen

t t hat he f le d after someone h

ad stated t hat someone h

ad a gun. Powell

stated t hat he di

d not remem

ber t elling the p olice t hat he o bser ved d efenda nt in the p ar king lo t just pr ior t o t he sho ot ing
or t hat he t old t he po lice tha t he o bser ved d efenda nt dr iving away fro m the s cene im me dia tely after the sh

oot in g. Ly dal e D urr wa s u si ng the pa y phone outs i dethe

l i quor store on th e eve ni ng of t he sho ot ing. H e t est ifi

ed t hat he o bser ved a whit e fo ur -d oo r Bu ick Re gal pu ll i nt o t he parkin g lot. A m

an, standi ng at about 6 feet two 2 inch es tall and wei ghi ng be tween 280 t o 3 00 p ou nds, exite d t he au t omo bile with an o bject in his right hand. Dur r e nt er ed t he l i quor store an d hea rd th ree or f our g un sh ots a bou t 5 to 10m

i nu tesl ater. D urr

di d n ot observe the sh

oot in g and di d not o bserve the whi

te Buick Re gal

le ave the area. Young testif

ie d that he and the v

ictim were sel li ng m arij uana i n the al le y a t Mo nt icello and Division o n t he night of t he sho ot ing. H e t est ifi ed t hat on t he night of t he shooting A

ngel ic a Barber h

ad “sh out ed out” t o him

and the v ictim and that they

greeted her, j ust pri

or to the gun shots. He tes tif i ed th at he

did not se e wh

o shot the vi cti m . Yo ung d id t est ify

t hat defend ant ow ned t he whit e Bu ick Re gal, but he did no t obs er veNo. 1-06- 2667

7

an y one wi th a f i rearm. On

cross -ex am

i na tion , Young testif

i ed th at def

endan t’s s i ster, Ke ana, an d the vi cti m dated i n the pas t. Ang elic a B ar be rdid no t t es t ify at t r ial. The tr i al j udge den i ed de f en da n t’s re quest th at h

i s s i ste r, K ea n a, b e a l l owe d to testify for the lim

ited purpose of establ

is hi ng that she an

d the vi ctim had a prev

ious dating rel ationsh ip, that she was hospi

tali zed af ter a fight with the v

ictim, and that def endan t had knowl edge

of the f i ght. At t he clo se o f evidence , t he t rial co ur t denied defend ant ’s r equ est s t o inst ru ct t he j ur y on i n v ol un tar y mansl augh ter an d s ec on d- de gr ee

m urder. Th e j ur

y re tur n ed a g ui l ty
ve r dic t fo rfirs t - de gr ee mur de r . De fen da nt ’s mo t io n fo ra n ew t r ial w as de nie d a nd t his appe al f oll owed. AN AL YSIS Def endan t fi rst argu es that he wasen titl ed to a j ury

i nstructi on on th

e less erinc lud ed o ffen se o f invo lun t ar y mans lau gh t er . De fen da nt co nt en ds t ha t t he r e is substantial

evi dence contai

ned i n the record of thi s case that supports t he concl usi on that defend ant act ed r eck lessly, ra t her t han inte nt ionally, in firing the sho t t hat killed t he vi ctim, thus support in

g a m ansl aughter in struction. Defen

dant em phasi zes hi s own t est imony tha t : ( 1) he did no t aim or po int t he firea rm at t he vict im or t he pe op le with t he victim, ( 2) he disc har ged his firear m from his hip and did no t ra ise his ar m and aim the firear m at t he vict im, (3) he sho t t o t he r ight of t he vict im and victim’s co mpany, ( 4) t he fire ar m wa s no t eq uip pe d w it h a sc o pe o rsig ht , ( 5) he ha d n ev er fire d a gu n be fo r e, ( 6) itNo. 1-06- 2667

8

was dark and rai

ny on the ni ght of the sh

oot in g, (7) he was sl

eep depri ved wh en h e fi red th e f i re ar m , (8 ) the sh ots weref

i re d i n ra pi d suc ce ss i on , w i

th n o opp ortu

n i ty to indepe ndent ly aim

eac h of t he sho t s, ( 9) he wa s 25 t o 3 0 feet fro m the vict im when the sho t s w er e fir ed , ( 10 ) he wa s ba ck ing aw ay fr o m t he vic t im as he dis ch ar ge d t he fire ar m,
an d ( 11 ) he k

n ew th e v i cti m to h av e v i ol en t procl i v i ti es . D ef en da n t ar gues th at a
re aso nable jur y cou ld have c onc luded t hat he wa s re ckles s wit h re spe ct t o his a ct ions a nd did no t have t he ment al st at e r equ ired for first -d egr ee mur der . Ac co rd ingly, defend ant
ar gu es t ha t he is e nt it led t o a n ew t r ial b ef o r e a pr o pe r ly ins t ruc t ed jury. “The gi vi ng of j ury i

nstructions is a m

atter withi

n the sound discretion of the tri al court .” People v. Jones , 219 Ill . 2d 1, 31 (2006), ci ting People

v. Castil lo , 188 Ill . 2d 53 6, 54 0 ( 19 99 )
. “[ A] n ins t ruc t io n is ju st ified o n a les se ro ffen se wh er e t he r e is so me evi dence to support the giv

in g of the i nstruction.” People v. DiVin cenzo , 183 Ill . 2d 239, 249 (1998), citin

g People v. Jones , 1 75 I ll. 2d 1 26, 132 (1 997 ). An instr uct ion sho uld be gi v en i f th ere is s om

e cre di b l e ev i den ce

i n th e rec ord

th at woul

d r ed uc e th e cri me of f i rs tdegre e m urder to i nv olu ntary man slaugh

ter. DiVincenzo , 183 Ill . 2d at 249, citing People v. Foster , 11 9 Ill. 2d 69, 87 ( 198 7); People v. Ward , 101 Il l . 2d 443 , 451 (1 984). However, a man

sl aughter in

struction should not be giv en wh ere the evi

dence sh ows that the h omi cide wa s m

urder, n ot man slaugh ter. People

v. Arnett, 217 Ill . App. 3d 626, 634 (1991), citin

g People v. Simpson , 74 Il l . 2d 497(1978 ). “Th e of f en ses of i nv olu ntary man slaugh

ter an d f i rst deg ree m urder r equi re diffe r en t men t al s t at es , su ch t ha t invo lun t ar y mans lau gh t er r eq uir es a le ss cu lpa bleNo. 1-06- 2667

9

me ntal s tate t han fi rst degree murder.” Jones , 21 9 I l l . 2d at 3 0. “ [A] d ef

en da n t com m i ts fi rst-degree murder when

he ki ll s an i ndi vi dual without lawf

ul justif ic ation an d he kn ows that his acts create a stro ng probabi li ty of death or great bodil

y h arm.” DiVincenzo , 183 Ill. 2d at 249 -5 0, citing 720 ILC S 5 /9 -1 (a )( 2) (Wes t 200 0) . C ont ra rily, “a de fendant
com m i ts i n v ol un tar y mansl augh ter wh en h e p er f orm s a cts th at a rel i ke l y to ca us e dea th or great bodil

y h arm to another and he pe

rforms those acts reckless ly

.” DiVincenzo , 183 Ill . 2d at 2 50, ci ti ng 720 IL CS 5/9 -3( a) (W es t 200 0). Re ckl es sn es s is def i ne d i n s ec ti on 4-6 of the Cri

mi nal Code of 1961: “A p er so n is r ec kle ss o rac t s r ec kle ss ly, w he n he co nsc io us ly di sreg ards a

su bs tan ti al an d un j us ti f i ab l e ri sk tha t ci rcu m sta nc esex i st or t hat a r esu lt w ill

follow , d esc ribed by the s t at ut e de fini ng t he o ffense; and
such di sreg ard consti

tutes a g ross de vi ati on f rom th e stan dard of care which a reasonable person would exerci se in the situation.” 720 ILCS 5/4-6 (We st 2000 ). “W hi l e a de f endan t is en titl ed to an i nv olu ntary man slaugh

ter i nstructi on if

there is ‘ slig ht ’ e vid en ce up o n w hic h a giv en t he o ry co uld be ba se d, t he r e mu st be so me evi dence of the reckle ss conduct.” People v. Eason , 326 Il l . Ap p. 3d 19 7, 209 ( 2001) , ci ting People v. Trotter , 178 I ll . App. 3d 29 2, 298 ( 1988). “Certain f acto rs may

suggest whether a def

endan t acted recklessl

y a nd whether an i

nvol untary m ansl aughter instr uct ion is ap pr op riat e: d ispar ity in size and st re ngt h bet wee n t he de fendant and t he vi cti m , the s ev eri

ty of the v i cti m ’si nj uri es, w hether the def

en dan t used h i s b are f i sts or aNo. 1-06- 2667

10

weapon, whether there were m ulti ple wounds, or whether the victim was def ensel ess.” Eason , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 209, citin g DiVincenzo , 183 Ill . 2d at 251. “Il li nois court s hav

e consi stently

hel d that when the def

endan t intends to fi re a gun, poin ts it in the general

direction of his or her in

tended vi ctim, and sh

oot s, such conduct is n

ot me rely reckle ss an

d does not warrant an in

volun tary-m ansl aughter inst ruc t io n, r eg ar dle ss o f t he de fen da nt ’s as se r t io n t ha t he o rshe did no t int en d t o kill any one.” People v. Jackson , 372 Ill . App. 3d 605, 613-14 (2007), citing Eason , 32 6 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 210 . “A de f en da nt’ s ‘ tes ti mony tha t he di d n ot i nte nd to ki l l an y one doe s n ot provide a s

uff ic ie nt basis f or instructin

g on in volun tary m ansl aughter.’ ” Jackson , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin

g People v. Cannon , 49 Il l . 2d 162 , 166 (1 971). As no t ed in Jackson by t he Fo ur t h D ist r ict o f t his c o ur t , t he ab o ve - st at ed rule does n ot sugges t that a de f

endan t’s testim ony i s nev er worthy

of b el i ef
. Jackson , 37 2 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 61 4. “T he jur y is no t en t it led t o dis r eg ar d d efe nd an t ’s t es t imo ny mer ely because he i s the def

endan t in the c ase.” Jackson , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 614, citin g People v. Barney , 176 I ll . 2d 69, 74 (1997 ). “Rather, a defendan t is not entitled to reduce first de gr ee mur de rt o [ invo lun t ar y mans lau gh t er ] by a h idd en men t al s t at e k no wn o nly t o him and unsupported by the f

acts.” Jackson , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 614. I n t he pr es en t ca se , de fen da nt sp o t t ed t he vic t im as he pu lled aw ay fr o m his
re sidenc e in his aut omo bile. He unsu cce ssfully att empt ed t o lo cat e t he vict im i n t he par king lo t of t he liquo r st or e loc at ed o n Division and Mo nt icello in Chicag o a fte r lo sing sig ht o f him. He r et ur ne d t o his au t o mo bile an d d r o ve ar o un d t he blo ck int o an alle y,No. 1-06- 2667

11

located beh

in d the li quor sto re, west of Nort h Monti cello. He parked his automobile , exi ted, to ok a few steps east to ward Mo nticel lo, and vi suall

y l ocat ed the victim

and those with the v ictim . Defen

dant fi red four shots from

hi s 9-mi ll im eter handgun

in the general di rection of the v i cti m and the otherswi th h i m . An gel i ca B arb er wa s sh

ot in the a rm . The vi cti m wasshot in

the b ack a

nd d i ed f rom th e gun shot wound. N othi

ng i n the rec ord in dic ates whether the vi

ctim had a weapon. The

evi dence does, howeve

r, indi cate that the vi ctim was not brandishi

ng a weapon at the tim

e of the sh

oot in g and was n

ot even aware of def

endan t’s presence pri

or t o bei ng sh ot . Two fired 9-m

il li me ter cart ridge cases
wer e disc ove re d in t he st re et ; o ne ca rt ridg e wa s ap pr oximat ely seven feet nor t h of t he victim and t he o t her was next t o t he vict im’s leg. Aft er t he sho ot ing, d efenda nt so ld t he f i rearm and ab andone d hi

s vehi cle. As n o t ed , de fen da nt r efe r s t o his o wn t es t imo ny t ha t he int en de d t o fire his
we ap on to th e ri gh

t of th e g rou p a s a wa rn i n g a n d to dem

on strate th at h e w as wi l l i n g to prot ect hi s f

am il y. Howeve

r, the undi sputed evidence that two o f the f our bull ets fi red f rom h i s we apon actual l y struck hum an targets u nde rcuts d ef endan t’s a rgum en t. Defend ant t hen ar gue s t hat t he co ro ner ’s r epo rt co rr obo ra t es his t est imony tha t he int en de d t o sho o t t o t he r igh t o f t he gr o up . As n o t ed , de fen da nt t es t ified t ha t t he vic t im
was st anding 2 0 t o 3 0 feet awa y from him, wit h t he left side o f the victim’s bo dy facing de fen da nt . T he co r o ne r ’s r ep o r t ind ica t es t ha t t he bu llet t ha t st ruc k a nd kille d t he vic t im
en t er ed his t o r so t hr o ug h t he r igh t sid e o f his b ac k a nd ex it ed t hr o ug h t he left sid e o f his chest. Defendant argues t hat this evi dence len ds credit to defendan

t’s t estim ony becauseNo. 1-06- 2667

12

it indi cat es that the victim m

oved into the pa th o f the bull et. We fi nd defendant’s argum en t unpe rsua si ve . We i ni tial ly note that defendan

t was the only

person to t estif

y tha t t he v ictim was standi ng wi th hi s l eft si

de to him . Secondly

, we note Young’s testim

ony tha t Angel ic a Ba rb er “ sh oute d ou t” to h i m an d th e v i cti m , a n d th at h e a n d th e v i cti m h ad tur n ed to greet her. Young’s testim ony c ontradicts defe

ndan t’s testim ony tha t t he v ictim move d in to the path of the vi

ctim and i ndicates that it may

have been

the vi ctim ’s right si de that
wa s exp ose d to de f

en da nt. In an y even t, we f i nd tha t the un di spute d e vi

de nc e that tw o of t he fo ur bullet s fired fro m defenda nt ’s we apo n act ually str uck human t ar get s disp os itive of def endan t’s a rgum en t. Ac co r din gly, we find t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did no t ab us e it s d isc r et io n w he n it den i ed de f endan t’s re quest to in struct the

j ury on i nv olu ntary man slaugh

ter. Def endan t nex t conten ds that he wasen titl ed to a j ury

i nstructi on on th

e less erincluded offense of se co nd- deg re e mur der . H e co nt ends t hat t he vict im’s thr eat t o t he saf ety of h is seven -year-old daughter, iss

ued by a person whom

defen dant knew h

ad a hi story of vi

olen ce, who deal

t drugs, and carried a f

irearm , constituted serious pr o vo ca t io n su fficie nt t o giv e r ise t o a s ud de n a nd int en se pa ss io n t he ne xt t ime def endan t saw h i m . A s n oted , th e g i

vi ng of j ury i ns tructi ons i s a matte r wi

thi n th e s oun d di screti on of the tri al court. People v. Jones , 219 Il l . 2d at 31
.No. 1-06- 2667

13 “A per so n co mmi

t s t he o ffense o f seco nd de gr ee mur der when he co mmi t s t he off en se of f i rst-deg ree m urder * ** [wh

en at] the ti me of the k i l l i ng h e i s actin g un der a sudden an d in tense passi

on resul ting f rom serious provocat ion b y the in div idua l ki ll ed.” 72 0 I LC S 5 /9 -2 (a)(1 ) (W est 20 00 ). “ Serious

pr ov oca ti on i s c on du ct s

uf f i ci en t to ex ci te an inte nse p assio n in a rea so nable pe rso n.” 720 ILC S 5 /9 -2 (Wes t 200 0) . Fo r d efenda nt to b e g ui l ty of se con d- de gr ee m urder, th e S tate m us t f i rs t prov e def

en da n t gui l ty of f i rs tdegree m urder bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. 720 ILCS 5/9-2(c) ( West 2000). The burden t hen shifts t o t he de fendant t o p ro ve se rio us p ro voc at ion by a pr epo nder ance of t he
evi den ce. 72 0 ILC S 5/9-2 (c) (W est 200 0). T he o nly ca t eg o r ies o f se r io us pr o vo ca t io n t ha t ar e r ec o gn ize d b y t he I llino is Suprem e C ourt a re: (1) su bs tan ti al ph y si cal i njury or as sa ul t, (2)m utua l qua rre l or
com ba t, (3) i l l egal

arrest, and

(4) adu l tery wi th the off ender’ s sp ouse. People v. Chevalier , 13 1 I ll. 2 d 6 6, 73 ( 19 89 )
. “Alt ho ug h t he se ca t eg o r ies we r e o r igin ally
com pon en ts o f th e p re de ce ss or of

f ense of v ol un tar y mansl augh ter , they appl y eq ual l y to second degree m

urder, whic

h has essen

tial ly the sam e el em ents.” People

v. Garci a , 165 Il l . 2d 409 , 429 (1 995). In t he inst ant cas e, defend ant co nt ends t hat he wa s ac t ing und er a su dde n and intens e pa ssio n when he saw t he vict im f or t he first t ime after t he vict im’s thr eat t o t he saf ety of h is daughter. For t hi s proposition, def endan t cites to several c ases that deem ed th re ats to or acts

don e u pon th e def en da n ts’ ch i l dr en weresuf f i ci en t prov oca ti on to
war ra nt a se co nd- deg re e- murd er instr uct ion.No. 1-06- 2667

14 De f en da nt f i rs t ci testo People v. Shields , 143 Il l . 2d 435 , 451-5 2 (199 1). In Shields , t he vict im pro vok ed t he de fendant by appr oa ching her wit h a meat cleave r a nd threa teni ng h er an d he r ch i l dren , who were prese

nt, i m medi atel y prece di ng th e sh ootin g. De f en da nt th en ci testo People v. Robles , 30 Ill . App. 3d 335, 336 (1975), which in volv ed a sit uat ion whe re t he vict im pro vok ed t he de fendant by put t ing his arms a ro und de f en da nt’ s daugh

ter i n d ef en da nt’ s p res en

ce . Lastl y , de f en da nt c i testo People v. Rice , 351 Ill. 60 4, 609 (1 933 ), wher e t he vict im pro vok ed d efenda nt by slapping t he defen dant’s daugh

ter in def endan t’s presence. The cas es c ited by defenda nt do not app ly to t he ca se a t bar . Fir st ly, defend ant was not in the vicini

ty of the victim when the claim ed t hreat concer nin

g defendant’s daught er o ccurr ed. S eco ndly , t he victim m

ade no physi

cal cont act with defendant’s dau ght er . T hirdly, a s ubst ant ial per iod of t ime elapsed bet wee n t he claimed t hre at and th e sh ooti n g. A s n oted , de f en da n t drov e h i s d augh ter to Ten n es se e, dr ov e b ack to Chic ag o , w ent o ut o f t o wn o n a mo ving jo b, re t ur ned t o Chic ag o , w o rk ed an e nt ire shift for his second j ob at a hardware store, and then shot and ki ll ed the vi ctim . Al so of great impor t was t he fact t hat t he de fendant ’s da ught er was in Tenne ssee at t he t ime of t he shootin g, an d the vi cti m wasof n o appare nt thre at to def

endan t’s da ugh ter at that ti

me. Accordin gly , defen dant’s argum

ent that the tr ia

l c ourt erred by

not instruct in

g the jury as to second-degree m

urder is un

persuasi ve. Defendan t next co ntends that t he trial court er red by deny in g defendant’s Batson motion wh

ere, at t he thi

rd stage of the Batson in

quiry , the trial court did n

ot ma ke aNo. 1-06- 2667

15

“sincer e and re aso ned” inquiry into t he r ace -ne ut ra l explanat ions g iven by the prosec uti on f or its perem ptory c ha l l enges . The U n i ted Sta tes Su pr em e C our t h as estab l i sh ed a th re e- ste p p roc ed ur e to de term i ne whether th

e Sta te’ s u se of pe rem ptory ch al l en ge s resul ted i n th e re mova l of
ven ire persons

on the basis of race. “F irst, the def endan t must ma ke a prima facie showi ng that the prosecuto r *** exerci sed perem pto ry ch alle nges on the b asi s of race.” People v. Williams , 209 Ill . 2d 227, 244 (2004), ci ting People v. Munson , 171 Ill . 2d 158, 17 4 ( 19 96 ). “ Se con

d, o n ce such a sh owi n g h as b een made, th e b

urden sh i f ts to th e S tate t o pr o vid e a r ac e- ne ut r al e xp lan at io n fo rex clu din g e ac h o f t he ve nir e p er so ns in question.” Williams , 209 Ill . 2d at 244. “Defense counsel ma y reb ut t he proff

ered expl anati ons as pretextual.” Williams , 209 Ill . 2d at 244, citing People v. Mitchell, 152 I ll. 2 d 2 74 ( 19 92 )
. “Fin ally, t he t r ial c o ur t de t er mines wh et he rt he de fen da nt ha s me t his burden of dem onstrating purposeful

dis crim in ation.” Williams , 209 Il

l . 2d at 24 4. In the i nstant case, the trial

judge ruled on the ul

tim ate iss ue of purposeful dis crim in ation af ter stat in g that he di d not feel

that defenda

nt had establ

is hed a prima facie cas e o f discr imi

nat ion. The law is clear t hat t he qu est ion o f whet her t he de fendant establ is hed a prima facie

cas e of purpos ef ul di scri m i na tion i s n ow m oot, sin ce the court procee ded to the

thi rd stag e of

i nqu i ry . People v. Mays , 254 Il l . Ap p. 3d 75 2, 758 ( 1993) , ci ting Hernandez v. New York , 50 0 U .S. 35 2, 3 60 , 11 4 L . Ed . 2d 39 5, 4 06 , 11 1 S . C t. 1859, 1866 (1991). “On appeal therefore, we m

ust determi

ne wh ether the Stat e has m

et i ts bu rden of provi di ng ‘ clear a

nd r eas onab l y spe ci f i c’ ra ce n eutral -ex planati ons [ that] areNo. 1-06- 2667

16

related to t hi s particul

ar case.” Mays , 254 I ll . App. 3d at 758-59. The Stat e in this case
exer cised t hre e o f its first fou r p er empt or y challenges a gainst black ve nire p er so ns. T he three bl ack v en i re persons

were : Al i sha Pi nex, B i rdia Cl ay ton, an d A ndr ew Ge orge. Durin g jury selection, def

endan t conceded that t he perem pto ry ch alle nge to Andrew Ge orge wa s p rope

r, a s M r. G eorg e h

ad two f am i l y mem be rs tha t ha d b een c onv

i cte d of
cr imes and w er e se rving se nt ence s at t he t ime of t rial. Ac co rd ingly, we must examine t he exp lanat ions o ffered by the S t at e as a just ifi cat ion fo r t he exc lusion o f Ms. P inex and Ms. Clayton. “If the St ate fai ls to meet its burden o n one o f these challenges, d efendant’s convi ction m ust be reversed a

nd the case

reman ded for a new tri al .” Mays , 254 Ill . App. 3d at 75 9. The prosecutor asserted that she cha ll enged Ms . Pin

ex b ecause sh

e i ndicated durin g voir dire that sh

e was dati ng a man that had b een

accuse d of

a f i rearm vi ola tion
. The p ros ecutor

cl ai med th at sh e c oul

d n ot ob tai n a def i n i te a n sw er f rom Ms . Pi n ex as to whether her boyfri

end was convicted o r acquitt ed of the charge against hi m. She al so
ex pre ss ed con cern tha t Ms . Pi ne x c oul d b e b i as ed

ag ai ns t the pol i cean d Sta te b ec au se

of the charge against her boyf riend. We agree wi

th the t rial

cour t’s fi ndi ng that t hese
r ea so ns w er e fa cia lly ra ce - ne ut r al. On ap pea l, de fendant co nt ends t hat t he r eas ons pr offer ed by t he St at e t o t he pere m ptor y ch al l en ge of Ms . Pi n ex weremerel

y pr etex ual . D ef en da n t sta tes th at a wh i te venire p er so n who had be en ac cus ed o f a cr ime was no t per empt or ily challenge d by t he State . A rev i ew of de f en da nt’ s on l y ci tati on i n th e re cord to su ppor t thi s p ropos i ti onNo. 1-06- 2667

17

de mo nst r at es t ha t de fen da nt ’s st at eme nt t ha t a w hit e v en ire pe r so n a cc us ed o f a c r ime was not chal

le nged i s si mpl y un true. Defendan

t cites to t he voir dire exam i na ti on of pot entia l juror Jo hn Pol

ka. In response to the tr ia l c ourt ’s questionin

g, Mr. Po lka

stated that he had n

ev er b een accuse d of

a cri me. Defendant t hen cont ends, in hi s reply brief to this cour t, that the pr osec ut or ’s challen ge to Ms. Pinex

was merel

y pretexual b ecause a non black veni re perso n, Ms. Marti n, h ad i ndi cated th at one of he r rel ati ve s had rec en

tly be en accuse d of

a cri me. I nit ially w e n o t e t ha t de fen da nt ’s ar gu men t is w aiv ed fo rfailu r e t o r ais e t ha t ar gu men t in hi s openi ng bri ef to this c ourt . 210 Ill . 2d R. 341(h)(7). Ho wever, even if not waived, defen dant’s argum

ent is unpersuasi

ve. The perem

pto ry ch alle nge to Ms. Pin

ex was race neut ra l as t he pr os ecu t or maintained t hat she c hallenged Ms. Pinex bec aus e o f the intimat e r elat ionship M s. P inex shar ed w ith an a ccu sed . T he pr os ecu t or may well have base d her challenge t o M s. P inex, a nd no t challenge d Ms . Ma rt in, base d o n t he differing degrees of i

ntim acy between Ms . Pin

ex an d her boy fri end an d Ms. Martin

and h er relati ve . We thus f in d defen dant’s argum

ent as to t he perem

pto ry ch alle nge of M s. Pin

ex unpersuasi

ve. The prosec utor ass erted that she ch

al l enged M s. Cl

ay ton be caus e this ven

i re person i ndicated on her j ury i

nf ormation card that she

had serv ed on a j ury b efore, but could not r ecall

whether that jury

sat o n a crim

in al or civ il matter. The pro secuto r alsoNo. 1-06- 2667

18

sta ted tha t Ms . Cl ay ton wasex

trem el y sof t sp oke n a

nd tha t sh e a ppe are d to b e “

not too aware of what was going on around h er.” Hist or ically

, d emeano r, bod y languag e, and t he manner of a nswe ring q ues t ions have been im port ant facto rs in

jury selection an

d constitute legi

tim ate, racial ly neutral
reas ons f or exe rci si ng p erem ptory c ha l l enges . People v. Banks , 241 Ill . App. 3d 966, 976 (1993). “However, such dem eanor-based ex

pla nations ‘m ust be closely

scrutin iz ed be ca us e they are su bj ec ti ve an d c an be ea si l y us ed by a p ros ecutor a s a

pretex t f or
ex cl udi ng p ersons on th

e b asis of race .’ ” [C i

tation ]. Banks , 241 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 976. “T he t r ial ju dg e’ s d et er minat io n o n t his is su e is a fin din g o f fac t wh ich , in lar ge pa r t , will turn on an eva

lua tion of [the prosecutor’s] credibi li ty.” Mays , 254 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 758. “T he r efo r e, t he t r ial ju dg e’ s r ulin g mu st be affo r de d g r ea t de fer en ce o n a pp ea l an d w ill not be reversed un

le ss cl early erroneous.” Mays , 254 Ill. App. 3d at 758. A trial cour t’s de cisi on wi l l b e deemed

“ cl ea rl y er ron eou s” i f th e rev i ewi n g c our t i s l ef t wi th a def i n i te
and f i rm conv i cti on tha t a m i stake ha s b een com m i tted. People v. Boston , 224 Ill . App. 3d 218 , 223 (1 991). The tria l j udge i n th i s ca se ob serv

ed M s. Cl ay ton’s beha vi or and dem ean or, enga ged co unse l for t he St at e and defend ant in conve rsa t ion r ega rd ing t he cha llenge and det er mined t he pr os ecu t or ’s exp lanat ion wa s ra ce- neut ra l. This c ou rt canno t say t hat t he court ’s f in din g was clearly

erroneous especi ally

in li ght of the trial

judge ’s statemen

t t hat he di d not feel that defenda

nt had establ

is hed a prima facie cas e o f discr imi nat ion o n t he part o f the State in

the fi rst place.No. 1-06- 2667

19 Defe ndan t next contends that the trial court erred by

barri ng def endan t’s si ster from testify in g at tr ia l. Def endan t contends that his s is

ter’s testim

ony c orro borated defendan t’s t heory of his case, specif ical ly , t hat he commi

tt ed a lesser-in

cluded off

ense
o f fir st - de gr ee mur de rbe ca us e h e w as fea r ful t ha t t he vic t im wa s g o ing t o ha rm his daug hter. “[ E ] vid en t iar y ru ling s a r e w it hin t he so un d d isc r et io n o f t he t r ial c o ur t an d w ill not be dis turbed absen

t a clear ab

use of discretion.” People v. Wheeler , 226 Ill . 2d 92, 132 ( 2007) . “Such an abuse o f discretion will be found o nly

where t he tr ial

cou rt ’s de cis io n is ‘ “a r

bit r ar y, f an cifu l o run r ea so na ble ” ’ o r‘ “w he r e n o r ea so na ble man wo uld take the vi ew ad

opted by the tri al court.” ’ [Ci

tations.] People v. Illgen , 145 Ill . 2d 353, 36 4 ( 19 91 )
. “T he co nt r o lling p r inc iple s c o nc er ning t he ad miss ibilit y o f ev ide nc e a r e w ell
settl ed . Th

e tr i al cou rt m us t [d ete rm i n e] wh eth er th e p rof er re d ev i den ce

f ai rl y ten dsto pr o ve o rdis pr o ve t he o ffen se ch ar ge d a nd wh et he r[ t he ] ev ide nc e is r ele va nt in t ha t it tends to make the questi on of guilt m ore o r les s probabl

e.” Wheeler, 226 Il

l . 2d at 13 2.

“ It i s enti rel y wi thi n th e di screti on of the tri al cou rt to ‘ rej ec t of

f ere d e vi de nc e on grou nds of i rre l evan cy i f i t has l i ttl e p rob ati

ve va l uedue to i ts re moten es s, u nc erta i nty , or possibly unf ai r prejudi ci al nature.’ [Citation].” Wheeler, 226 Ill . 2d at 132. Defend ant claims tha t eac h par t y is entit led t o p re sent evidenc e which is r elevant to its theory

of the ca se. Wheeler, 226 Ill . 2d at 132, citing People v. Molsby , 66 Ill . App. 3d 64 7 ( 19 78 ). W

h i l e th i s is tr ue , i t i s a l so t ru e th at def i n i n g th e p re cise l i m i ts
co nt ro lli ng t he ad missibi

lty o f such e vidence can be a difficult t ask for t he t rial co ur t , a ndNo. 1-06- 2667

20

if the e vidence is to o r emot e in time t o s hed light on t he fact s t o be fou nd, it sho uld be
ex cl uded
. Wheeler, 226 Il

l . 2d at 13 2. Defend ant co nt ends t hat his siste r’s t est imony wo uld have bolst er ed t he
cr edibility of his t heo ry t hat he wa s fear ful of t he vict im, wo uld have explained why defend ant did no t anno unce his pre senc e pr ior t o firing t he fat al sho t , a nd wo uld have
co un t er ed t he St at e’ s a r gu men t t ha t de fen da nt wa s no t fea r ful o f t he vic t im. T he St at e c o nt en ds t ha t t he t es t imo ny o f de fen da nt ’s sis t er wo uld ha ve o nly de mo nst r at ed t he vic t im’s vio len t pr o pe nsit ies
. T he St at e r ea so ns t ha t sinc e t his c as e d id not inv olve self-def ense, the testim

ony e stablis

hi ng the v ictim ’s v iolent propensi

ties was irre levant and p re

judicial. T he St at e ar gue s t hat t he t est imony is irreleva nt beca use t he incident t hat defend ant ’s sist er wo uld have t est ifi ed t o w as t oo re mot e t o be ar on t he i ns tan t cri me. As n oted , th e v

i cti m ha d b ea ten de f en da nt’ s s i ster th

ree or f our y ea rs pri or to the shooting. We

agree wi th the Stat e. The testim

ony of defen dant establ

is hed that he f

ired f our shots in the gen

eral direct ion of the victim and those w ith hi m wi tho ut the victim’s knowledge o f defendant’s presence i n the area. As

the vi ctim ’s v iolent propensi

ties di d not bear on whether de f en da nt c om m i tted th e cri me of f i rs t-de gre e m

urder s i nc e the i ns tan t ca se di d n ot in volv e a si tuation of sel

f-def ense, the proff

ered testim

ony of defen dant’s sister was irre levant . Fu rt her mor e, t he incident t hat defend ant claimed made him f ear ful of t he victim was t oo re mot e t o be ar on d efenda nt ’s fear of t he vict im on t he night of t heNo. 1-06- 2667

21

sh ooti ng . W e there f

ore f i nd de f en da nt’ s a rgu men t tha t the trial cou rt er red by not allowi ng def endan t’s si ster to testify

at tr ia l un persuasi ve. Defe ndan t t hen argues that the court erred when i t repeatedly

sustain ed unexp lained o bject ions by t he St at e du ring d efenda nt ’s cr os s-e xaminatio n of G ra y and Young. Gr ay te st ifi

ed o n dire ct examinat ion t hat he o bser ved d efenda nt pull up t o t he liqu o rst o r e in a w hit e fo ur - do o rve hic le. He t he n st at ed t ha t de fen da nt ex it ed fr o m his vehicle bea ring a larg e firea rm wit h an at t achment . T he wit ness a ssu med t hat t he at t achment on t he firea rm wa s eit her a sc op e o f a laser sight . O n cr os s-e xaminatio n, defen se counsel

asked Gray

if he h ad ever f ired a gun and wh ether he h ad ever f ired a gun wi th a scope on it. Both questions were obj ected to by the Stat e, without explana t ion. The t rial co ur t sus t ained bo t h objec t ions w itho ut ask ing t he St at e fo r t he
re as on s f or i ts o b j ec ti on . O n

appe al, de f

en da n t ar gu es th at th e q ue sti oni n g w en t to Gray’ s knowledge of f

irearm s and h is abi li ty to t estif

y as to whether the fi

rearm h e saw de f en da n t h ol di n g h ad a s cop e or

l as er si gh t on i t. On cr os s-e xaminatio n Yo ung w as a ske d if he and t he vict im were be ar ing f i rearm s on th e n i ght of the shooti

ng or w hether h e an d the vi cti m cus tomar i l y bore fi rearms w hen they would deal

drugs. Bot h questions were obj ected to by the Stat e, wit hou t a r eas on g iven for t he o bject ions. The t rial judg e ag ain sust ained t he o bject ions without aski

ng the State to giv

e a reason f

or t he obj ections. On

appeal , defen

dant argues t ha t t he qu es t io ning we nt t o t he r ea so na ble ne ss o f de fen da nt ’s fea ro f t he vic t im.No. 1-06- 2667

22 Assum in g arguendo that t he trial

court erred by

sustain in g the unex

pla in ed
o bje ct io ns ma de by t he St at e in r ela t io n t o Gr ay’ s a nd Yo un g’ s t es t imo ny, it is no t like ly t ha t t he r es ult o f t he t r ial w o uld ha ve be en an y diffe r en t . T he ex clu sio n o f ad miss ible
evi den ce is su bj ect to a ha

rm l ess error an al y si s. People

v. Damnitz, 269 Ill . App. 3d 51, 60 ( 199 4). “ Thi s c ourt wi l l not revers e a

con vi cti on b as ed upon the excl us i on of adm is si ble evi dence un le ss the ev

ide nce could reasonabl

y h ave af fected the verdict.” Damnitz , 269 Ill . App. 3d at 60-61. As n o t ed , de fen da nt sp o t t ed t he vic t im as he pu lled aw ay fr o m his r es ide nc e in his aut omo bile. He unsu cce ssfully att empt ed t o lo cat e t he vict im i n t he pa rk ing lot of t he l i qu or s tore

l oca ted on Di v i si on an d M on ti ce l l o af ter l osi n g s i gh t of h i m . H e retu

rned to hi s automobile

and drove around the bl

ock in to an al le y, l ocated behi

nd the l iquor store, west o f Monticel

lo. He broug ht his automobil e to a sto p, exited, t oo k a few steps east to ward Monticel

lo, and v is ually located the vi

ctim and those wi

th hi m. Def endan t fi red fou r sho t s fro m his 9-mill imeter handg un in t he ge ner al dire ct ion o f the victim and t he ot her s. Ang elica Bar ber was sho t in the a rm, a nd t he vict im was sho t in the ba ck a nd die d from the gunsh

ot wound. Not hi

ng i n the record in

dic ates whether the vi

ctim had a
wea po n. T he evide nce d oe s indicat e t hat t he vict im was no t bra ndishing a w eap on a t t he t ime of t he sho ot ing and w as no t even a war e o f defend ant ’s pr ese nce p rio r t o d efenda nt f i ri n g h i s w ea pon . Tw o f

i re d 9 -m i l l i mete r c ar tri dg e c as es weredi sc ov ered

i n th e stre et;
on e c ar tri dg e w as appr ox i mate l y se v en f eet n orth of th e v i cti m an d th e oth er wa s n ex t to th e v i cti m ’s l eg . A f ter th e sh ooti

n g, d ef en da n t so l d th e f i re ar m an d a b an don ed th e w h i teNo. 1-06- 2667

23

f our-door Bui

ck Re gal at Ful l erton an d Lock wood, be caus e he wan

ted “ nothi ng f urthe r” to do with

ei ther. In l igh t o f the overwh

el mi ng ev ide nce of de fen

dant’s gui lt, i ncl udin g the fact t hat two of only

four bull ets discharged from def

endant’s fi

rearm lan ded on human targets, we fi nd that if sustain

in g the St ate’s unexplai

ned objections was error, it was harml ess. Fi nal ly , defen dant argues that the trial

court erred when i

t sustained un

expl ai ned obj ections b

y the State wi thout ex planati on dur

i ng th e di rect ex am i na tion of def endan t. Specificall

y, defendant arg ues t hat t he tr ial cou rt erre d when it sust ained the St ate ’s objections wi

thou t reaso ns to a lin

e of questioning that was in tended t o est abl

ish def endan t’s re ason ab l e b el i ef that the vi cti m and others

i n v i cti m ’scom pan y were carry i ng f i rearm s on th e n i ght i n qu esti on. Assum in g arguendo that t he trial

court erred by

sustain in g the unex

pla in ed ob j ec ti on s m

ade b y th e S tate i n re l ati on to de f en da n t’s testi mon y th at h e h ad re as on to believe t hat t he vict im and ot her in victim’s co mpany wer e ca rr ying fi re ar ms on t he night in q ue st io n, it is no t like ly t ha t t he r es ult o f t he t r ial w o uld ha ve be en an y diffe r en t . I t is at th i s p oi nt u nn ec es sa ry to rei tera te the overw

he l m i ng ev i de nc e of de f en da nt’ s g ui l t, of f i rs t-de gre e m

urder, si nc e w e h ave al rea dy done s o. In l igh t o f the overwh

el mi ng ev ide nce of de fen

dant’s gui lt i ncl udin g the fact t hat two o f onl

y f our bull ets disc harged f rom def endan t’s fi rearm actual

ly la nded on h uma n target s, we fi

nd that if sustain in g the Stat e’s un

expl ai ned obj ections was

error, it was harml ess.No. 1-06- 2667

24 CONCLUSION For the f oreg oi ng rea sons, we a f

f i rm the j udg men t of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Co o k C o un t y. Af

fi rmed. CA HILL , P.J., wi

th GA RCIA, J., con

cur.