Si xth Di vi si on February 22, 2008 No. 1-06- 0271 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, Plai ntif f-A ppel le e,
v. JOSE LUIS G ONZALEZ, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ap pe al fr o m th e C i rc ui t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty 02 CR 14656
Honorable Joh n J . Sc oti l l o, Judge Presidin

g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEMcBR

ID E de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Foll owing a jury trial , defen

dant, Jose Lui s Gonzalez, was f ound guil ty of f irst degree murd er and s ent ence d t o a t er m of nat ur al lif e in pr ison. On ap pea l, de fendant co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by admit t ing o t her cr imes evidence and by ad mitt ing hear say t est imony. Fo r t he
r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m. In Ma y 2002 , d efenda nt was ar re st ed in T exas and s ubse que nt ly charge d wit h, a mong oth er th i n gs , the 1 99 1 m

ur der of h i s 1 8- yea

r-ol d m ate rnal h al f siste r, A n ge l i ta M oli n a. Pri or to tri al , th e Sta

te f i l ed a m oti on to a dm i t othe r cr i mesev i de nc e re ga

rdi ng the 199 6 m urder of defendant’s mot her, Blanca Mo li na. The t rial court ruled t hat evidence per taining to Blanca’s
m ur der c oul

d n ot b e adm i tted as oth er cri mes ev i den ce , but th

at th e S tate cou l d q ue sti on i ts pol i ce wi tnes ses ab out the cours e of

thei r i nv esti gation. T he fo llo win g e vid en ce wa s p r es en t ed at de fen da nt ’s t r ial. Ti na Mari e Sheal y testi f i ed th at she last sp oke wi

th A nge l i ta over th e teleph one on Jan uary 19, 200 1. She d isco ver ed t hat Angelita was missing the follow ing day and re po rt ed he r missing t o t he E lgin po lice o n Ja nu ar y 22 , 19 91
. Ap pr o ximat ely o ne we ek lat er , de fen da nt ca lled Sh ea ly1-06-0271

2

and a ske d if she wo uld t ake Blanca ou t t o lo ok for Angelita . S healy never saw defend ant join t he
sea rc h for Angelita . S he last saw defend ant on J anua ry 23 , 1 991 , w hen de fendant t old her t hat he had be en rece i vi ng th reaten i ng phone cal l s. Al berto Po zos, Angel

ita’s fri end, testif ie d that Angel

ita l iv ed i n an apartment wi

th her
cou si n T ony , Bl an ca , an d de f en da nt. Pozos went to A

ng el i ta’ s a pa rtm en t arou nd 2 a .m . on Janu ar y 20, 199 1. To ny and a fr iend we re at t he ap ar t ment a t t hat t ime, and Blanca ar rived at t he ap ar tmen t at a pp rox i mate l y 4 a .m . Pozos h

ea rd Bl an ca an d A n ge l i ta ta l ki n g w h en h e w en t to sle ep ar o un d 4 a. m. , an d w he n he aw o ke t he fo llo win g mo rning Po zo s d id n o t se e A ng elit a a nd it did no t app ear t hat her bed ha d bee n slept in. At t hat t ime, de fendant was do wnst airs in t he living
roo m. A couple of da

ys la ter, Po zos went to look for An gelita wi th Tony, al

though he n

ever
wen t searc hi ng f or her w i th de f endan t. Robert Bjorkla

nd, a retired detectiv

e of the Elgin

police departmen

t, t estif ie d that at app ro ximately 4 p. m. o n Febr uar y 8, 1 991 , he re ceived a disp at ch t hat a bo dy had be en fo und near A sh an

d Burch Streets in

Elgi n, Ill in ois. The n

aked and f

rozen body, l

ater identifi

ed as An gelita, was l

ocated in a f

ie ld a pproxim ately 200 feet be

hi nd he r residen ce. The body

had a l acerati on on th

e f orehe ad an

d br ui si ng on the l i m bs
. An gel Tin aj ero, who identi fi

ed An gelita’s body f or t he polic e, testifi

ed that he had previously

dated Angel

ita an d that she had gi

ven bi rth to their ch

il d. Dr. La rry Bl um perf orme d an autopsy and use d a s ex

ual ass aul t ki t on An gel i ta’sbody
. Dr. Blum collected lo ose hairs fro m various p art s of Angeli ta’s bo dy, to ok sa mples of Angeli ta’s bl ood and he ad an d pub i c hai

r, and took oral , va

gi na l and recta l swa bs
.1-06-0271

3

Dr. Bl um testi f i ed th at i n h i s ex pert opi ni on, A nge l i ta di ed of acute c ran i ocereb ral i nj ury due to m ul tip l e b l unt trau ma res ul tin g f rom a be ati ng a nd th at the m an ne r of d eath washom i cide. Dr . B lum’s examinat ion r evea led t hat Angelita had mult iple t ypes o f blunt fo rc e injury, includ ing contusions a

nd ab rasi ons to her face an

d neck, lacerations to the scal p and h ead area, and a depressed skull f

ractu re on t he righ

t side of the head beneath the temple. An geli ta’s body also h ad b ru i si n g on th e f i n gers , c oll ar

b on e, el b ow, h i p, a n d k n ee . Th er e w er e def

ensi v e w oun dsto the back of

An gelita’s han ds, whi ch Dr. Bl um e xpl ai ned could be cause d by

tryi ng to cover up wh i l e b ei n g s tru ck on th e h ead. Th er e w as

a dep re ss ed

sk ul l f ra ctu reb en ea th a l ac erati on to An gelita’s righ t t em ple , and bone f

ragmen ts from the skull

fracture had pi

erced and en

tered her brai n. Dr. Blum

opine d that t he condi

tion of A ngel ita’s body was consi stent with h er havi ng died between Jan uary 20 an d Ja nua ry 22, 199 1. Dr. B l

um testi f i ed th at An

gel i ta’sbru i ses were in fl icted shortly b efore death an d that she di ed i

n a prone or fetal

positi on. Dr. Blum

opine d that t he sk ull fract ur e wa s ca use d by “a ho rr ifi c amo unt of fo rc e” t hat was co nsist ent wit h being hit by a hea vy, de nse o bject , su ch as a hammer o r a t ire iro n. D r. Blum also examined t he t issue a ro und the a nus and va gi na l area s an d di d not se e an

y evi den ce of bl unt trau ma or bru i si ng to thos e are as. Dr . B lum explained t hat t his was c ons iste nt wit h a wo men who had p re viou sly given birt h and who had p os sibly

been s exua lly

assa ult ed. Dr . B lum also t est ifi ed t hat his findings wer e co nsist ent wi th A n ge l i ta h av i n g b een gr ab b ed aroun d th e n eck or str uc k d uri n g a sex ual as sa ul t an d w i th An gel i ta ha vi ng b een sex ual l y ass aul ted an d ki l l ed at ap proxi matel y the s am e ti me. On cross-exam

in ation, Dr. Blum

testifi ed that hi s exam

in ation of A ngel ita’s body rev eal ed no phy si cal ev i de nc e of sexu al as sa ul t. He also ack now l edge d that h

i s f i nd i ng s w ere not1-06-0271

4

i nc onsi sten t wi th A nge l i ta en gagi ng i n c onse ns ual i nterc ourse pri or to havi

ng b een m urdere d. The parties s

tipulated that defendan

t was arrested at his h

ome i n Elgin on January

23, 199 1, on an un rel ate d m atte r, a nd tha t he wa s sti l l i n c us tody when A ng el i ta’ s b ody wa s f oun d on February 8, 1991. Cynt hia T o rr isi- Ba rr er r a, a fo r en sic sc ien t ist in t he bio lo gy D NA se ct io n o f t he I llino is State Poli ce, testif

i ed th at on F ebruary

13, 199 1, sh

e rec ei ve d ev i den ce i n th i s ca se i nc l udi ng h ai rs and f ib ers from

An gelita’s body, a s heet i n wh ic h poli ce had wrapped the b ody, and a s exual assaul t kit. On Apri

l 2, 1991, sh

e conducted an an

al ys is of the sex

ual assaul t kit, whi ch reve al ed the presence of

sperm on An gelita’s vagi nal and rectal

swabs . Tor risi

al so determi

ned that several of the hum

an h ai rs recovered from

An gelita were col or-t reated or dye d, and her f urther examinat ion o f tw o he ad ha irs fro m Angelita’ s kno wn st anda rd re vealed t hat she d id no t have dy ed or col or-treated h

ai r. On cross -exam

i na tion , Tori ssi

ackn owl edge d tha

t unde r Mac ard’ s Pri

nc i pl e, hai r trans f ers between peopl e an d obj ects a

re com mon an d ex pected am ong pe opl e wh

o li ve together or sha

re the s am e b ed. Rob erto G arz a, J

r., a Tex asRa ng er s tatione d i n C orpu s Chr

i sti e, T exas , testi f

i ed tha t on Janu ar y 17, 199 6, he wa s ass igned t o inves t igat e t he mur der of Blanc a Mo lina. Blanca was fou nd in a semi-bus hy woo ded ar ea in a sha llow g ra ve ap pr oximat ely 60 yard s fro m her ap ar t ment compl ex. She was

naked f rom the wai st down, wrapped neatly in a bl anket and a b ed sheet that
matched th e b eddi

ng i n h er apa rtme nt. There w ere n

o signs of f orced e ntry i nto he r apar tme nt. The m edi cal exam in er ruled that the cause of

death was strangul

ation an d that Blan

ca was1-06-0271

5

suffo cat ed w ith a p last ic bag t hat was place d o ver her head . B ase d up on his initial invest igat ion, Ranger Garza contacted the Elgi n poli ce departmen

t. In February

1996, the Elgi

n poli ce sent two det ect ives t o T exas , a nd Ra nger Gar za he lped t hem in their invest igat ion. Rang er Gar za a nd t he El gi n pol i ce i nterv i ewed def endan t, who volu

ntari l y gave sa m pl es of his b l ood, hai

r and sa l i va . Ra ng er Ga r za t es t ified t ha t he met wit h B lan ca ’s fr ien d J o se fina Cu ella rin T ex as in February 1996 and that she appe ared fea rful and woul d not speak with h im at that t im

e. Ranger Ga r za an d S er ge an t Jim B ar ne s o f t he E lgin po lice de pa r t men t sp o ke wit h C ue llar init ially in A pr il 2002 and then

returned later that month an d presented Cuel

la r with n ew i nf ormation that they obtaine d from

her f ormer em ploy er. On Apri

l 25, 2002, Garza accom

pani ed Cuel la r to Chi cago and was pres ent when

she was in terviewe d by

the Stat e’s A

tt orney’ s off

ic e and gav

e a vi deotaped in terview. Fo llo win g R an ge rGa r za ’s t es t imo ny, de fen se co un se l mad e a mo t io n fo ra mis t r ial,
ar gu ing t ha t t he St at e, t hr o ug h R an ge rGa r za ’s t es t imo ny, ha d imp lied t ha t de fen da nt kille d h is mot her and t her eby exce ede d t he t rial co ur t ’s r uling o n t he mot ion in limine . The tria l court de nie d d efe nd an t ’s mo t io n, st at ing t ha t Ra ng er Ga r za ha d t es t ified as t o t he st ep s in h is invest igat ion and t hat t he co ur t had s ust ained d efense co unse l’s objec t ions t o q ues t ions r ega rd ing the substan

ce of the conv

ersations b etween Ran

ger Garza and the El

gin police. Elgin po lice officer Will

iam Woo d t est ifi

ed t hat in Janua ry 19 96, aft er re ceiving a p hone call f rom the Texas R

anger’s off ic e, he was as signed to inv estigate An

gelita’s death. Off

ic er Woo d sp ok e t o R ange r G ar za a bou t a “ca se t hey had d ow n t her e, ” and on F ebr uar y 21, 199 6, he
wen t to Te x as wi th h i s p ar tn er an d sh ortl y th er eaf ter met wi th de f en da n t. D ef en da n t wa s ta ken to1-06-0271

6

a h osp i tal where hi s b l ood w astak en , an

d O f f i cer Wood al so ob

tai ne d s al i va an d hai rs f rom defen dant’s h ead and pub ic

area. These i

tems were sub sequentl

y s ent to t he Il

li nois Stat e Police cri me lab
. Jos ef i n a Cue l l ar , a

re si den t of Cor pu s Ch ri sti e, Te x as , te sti

f i ed th at B l an ca mov ed to Te xas sho rt ly after Angelita ’s funer al in 1991 . I n May 19 95, Cue llar visited Blanca and d efenda nt in a hospi tal i n Texas . Accordin

g to Cuella

r, defen dant becam

e upset durin

g the vi si t, exposed h i m se l f to th e tw o wom

en , a n d tol d th em th at “ wh en h e g ot out o f

[the h osp i tal ], h e w as goi n g to kil l a l ot of people, and that [Cuellar and Blan ca] were go in

g to be the fi

rst o nes.” Defendan

t also t o ld B lan ca an d C ue llar “t ha t he wa s g o ing t o f-
- - bo t h o f [ t he m], like he ha d d o ne wit h An gie when he ki ll ed her,” and that “

he h ad f---ed A

ngie all n igh t long, even

though she was

dead.” Cuella r and Bl anca then le ft the hospi

tal an d Cuella r to ok Blan

ca to her sister’s h

ome. Approxi ma tely four weeks l

ater, defendan

t and Bl anca v

is ited Cuel

la r at her home. Ov

er defens e co unse l’s objec t ion, Cue llar t est ifi ed t hat , d ur ing t hat visit, Blanca t old Cue llar t hat she
was m ovin g back to Chicago because “ she f el t guil ty be cause sh

e knew al l the ti me who had ki

ll ed Ang ie, ” a nd t ha t “sh e k ne w a ll t he t ime it wa s him. ” D efe nd an t t he n be ca me u ps et an d t o ld Bla nc a t ha t she did no t ha ve t o dis cu ss t he ir p r o ble ms w it h C ue llar an d t ha t “he wa s g o ing t o kill both [Blan

ca and Cue ll

ar], li ke he h ad done wi

th Angi e.” The trial

court in structed t he j ury that Blanca ’s st at ement t hat “she k new a ll the t ime it was him” was no t being o ffered t o p ro ve who ki l l ed A ng el i ta, b ut ra the r “ f or th e l i m i ted pur pos e of sh owi ng wh y a p ers on s ai

d w ha t a p ers on sai d.” On cross-exami

nation, Cuell

ar acknowledged t hat she did n ot tell the poli

ce or anyone else1-06-0271

7

that defenda

nt had m ade those statements unti

l s he di sclosed them to authorities on A pril 17, 2002. Prior to that, Cuellar was questione d by authorities

about Angel

ita’s murder on A

pril 15, 20 02 , a n d tol d th em th at def en da n t h ad sa i d th at w h en h e g ot out o f

th e h osp i tal h e w as goi n g to ki l l a l ot of pe ople a nd tha t Bl an ca an d C ue l l ar woul

d b e the f i rs t. Sh e di d n ot men ti on defend ant ’s t hre at t o ha ve se x wit h her and B lanca no r his ad mission t o s exua lly assa ult ing and killing Ang elit a. Sh e a lso did no t men t io n t he st at eme nt de fen da nt mad e a t he rho me approx i matel y f our weeks af

ter the 1 995 h

ospi tal visi t. On re di re ct ex am i n ati on , C ue l l ar

testi f i ed th at sh e d

i d n ot go to th e p oli ce

wi th de f en da nt’ s state men

ts b ec au se

sh e w asaf rai d of hi m . W he n C ue l l ar s poke wi th th e p ol i ceon April 17, 2002, they

presented her wi

th in form ation f rom her f ormer em ploy er who to ld pol

ic e t hat Cue llar had t old him that defend ant t hre at ened t o r ape and k ill her and B lanca, as he had d one to An gelita. Cuel

la r then bec am

e upset and told poli

ce all of the statements that defe

ndan t had
made to her. K ri sten B oster, a

f oren si c s ci en ti st w i th th e Il l i noi s S tatePol

i cef oren si c c ri me l ab f rom 199 2 to 20 00, tes ti f

i ed tha t i n 1 996 sh e re ce i ve d e vi de nc e c ol l ec ted

f rom the cri me s cene f or DNA a nalysis. This e vidence included bloo d st anda rd s fro m Angelita a nd de fendant as w ell as t he vaginal and re ct al swa bs t ake n fro m the s exua l assau lt k it p er for med o n Angelita ’s bo dy. S he per for med a D NA ext ra ct ion o n t he r ect al swa bs, bu t she d id no t per for m an ext ra ct ion o n t he vagi nal swabs because they contain ed an i nsuf fi ci ent am ount o f s perm ce ll s. The rectal s

wab contain ed two so urces of DNA : fem al e DNA, wh

ic h was prese

nt because

the vi ctim was f em al e, and m al e DNA f

rom the sperm

cells . There was a l

arge am ount o f DNA

in the nonsperm

(fem al e)1-06-0271

8

f action, b ut the D NA f rom th e sp erm f raction wa s sm

al l and deg raded and i ns uf f i ci en t for an al y si s. She s en t a s mal l porti on of tha t DNA , as

we l l asDN A f rom A ng el i ta a nd de f en da nt’ s b l ood stan dards , to a pri

va te l abf or a dif f eren t type of D NA anal y si s. Dr . R obin Co t t on, an exp er t in DNA ana lysis who wo rk s for a pr ivate DNA t est ing
co mpany, t est ifi

ed t hat in 199 6, she e xamined t he DN A ext ra ct ed fr om Ange lita’s r ect al swa b and compared t hat to the known samples of DNA f rom defendant and An

geli ta. According to t hose tests, defendan

t was a possib le

contributor to the sperm

found on the v

ictim, and the f

requency given t o t his “matc h” wa s 1 in 14 0, 000 . D r. Co t t on a lso t est ifi ed t hat t he sc ience o f DNA t est ing has adv anced si gnifi cantl y s in ce the anal

ys is in this case was perf

ormed i n 1996. La ur ie L ee , a fo r en sic sc ien t ist wit h t he I llino is S t at e P o lice cr ime la b a nd a s pe cia list in hair micro sco py, o r t he co mpar ison o f hairs and fibers, t est ifi ed t hat t hro ugh ha ir examinat ion she
co uld de t er mine w he t he ra h air ca me fr o m an an imal o ra p er so n a nd , if t he ha ir w as fr o m a hu man , t he r ac e o f t ha t pe r so n, t he bo dy p ar t fr o m wh ich t he ha ir o r igin at ed , an d w he t he rt he ha ir
wa s a r t ificia lly t r ea t ed o rfo r cib ly re mo ve d. Le e a lso t es t ified t ha t a h air ca nno t be po sit ive ly ident ifi ed a s having c ome fr om a p ar t icular individual but t hat , in mos t cas es, an individual ca n be
ex cl uded as a possi bl e sourc e of

that hai r and i t can be determ i ne d i f a hai r i s dy ed. Le e te sti f i ed tha t i n Marc h 1 996 , sh

e re ce i ve d the h ai rs an d f i be rs col l ec ted f rom Ang elit a’ s bo dy a nd t he ev ide nc e fr o m t he se xu al a ss au lt ev ide nc e k it , wh ich inc lud ed a liq uid bloo d sampl

e, vaginal swabs and sm

ear, re ctal swab and sm

ear, dr ied b lood and sali

va sam ples, he ad ha ir s t an da r ds , pu bic ha ir c o mbing s, pu bic ha ir s t an da r ds , ha irs an d fib er s fr o m t he she et in whi ch An gel i ta was wrapp ed, an

d he ad h ai r stan dards f rom d ef endan t. Lee c omp ared th

e hai rs1-06-0271

9

coll ected at t he cri

me scene to known ha

ir stan dards of def

endan t and An gelita. Lee obse

rved color- altered or dyed hai

rs that were co ll

ected fro m A

ngelita’s righ

t hand, lef t hand, right chest ab dom en , an d lef t hi p, a nd the sh ee t i n w hi ch A ng el i ta’ s b ody wa s w rap pe d. L ee ’s

com pa ri son of th ose h ai rsto s tan da rd s f rom de f en da n t an d A n ge l i ta rev ea l ed th at th e d yed h ai rsdi d n ot ori gi n ate f rom A ng el i ta a nd we re i nc onc l us i ve wi th res pe ct to de f

en da nt. Le e e xp l ai

ne d that i t wa s n ot
v al i d to c om pa reth e d yed h ai rsto de f en da n t’s h ai r a n d th at th e d yed h ai rswerei n con cl us i v e wi th resp ect to def

endan t bec aus e sh

e rec ei ve d def endan t’s h ead h ai r stan dards more than

f i ve years fro m when t he dyed hairs w er e she d and t hat , in t he co ur se o f fi ve year s, a ll of the hairs o n a person’s h

ead hav e been “ch anged out” and the person has compl etely dif feren t hair. In 2001, Lee sub m i tted f our of th e col or-al tered h ai rs f or mi tochondri al

DNA (m tDNA) anal

y si s. On cro ss-examin

ation, Lee t estified that she d id not co mpare t he dyed hairs to B lanca’s hair bec aus e she did no t have a hair st anda rd fro m Blanca and , t her efo re , it was po ssible t hat t he
sus pect h ai rs ca me f rom B l anca. Da n a P i tch f ord , a f oren si c s ci en ti st a n d s pe ci al i st i n DN A an al y sis wi th th e I l l i n oi s S tate Police cri me la b, testif ie d that in 2001 s

he an al yz ed the sperm

fraction from

An gelita’s rectal swab usi ng the m ost curr ent form

of DNA a

nal ys is . The sperm

fraction from

the rectal swab

contain ed a full nuclear DNA p ro fil

e, and P itchfo rd t est ifi

ed t hat , in her expe rt op inion and w ithin a
reas onab l e deg

ree of sci en tif i c certai nty, that DN

A profi l e m atched de f

endan t’s D NA prof i l e. Pit ch fo r d o pin ed t ha t t he pr o ba bilit y o f t his ma t ch , o rfind ing de fen da nt ’s DN A p r o file, wa s 1 in 180 bill ion, and t hat t he o dds of r ando mly matc hing t hat pr ofile was “imposs ible” and “no t go ing t o ha ppe n.” Mo re ove r, t he pr oba bili t y of t he mat ch wit h defend ant ’s pr ofile was not affect ed by1-06-0271

10

the f act tha t def endan t and An gel i ta were ha l f brothe r and sister. Pitchf ord further testifi

ed that she al so performed a DN A ex tract ion on A

ngel ita’s vagi nal
swa bs . She i den tif i ed a m i xture of D NA prof i l es a s a c ombi

ne d prof i l e of An gel i ta and def endan t. Ho weve r, t he amo unt of D NA ext ra ct ed fr om t he vag inal swabs w as r elat ively sm all and t he proba bi l i ty of f i ndi ng th at prof i l e was 1 i n 62
. Dr. Con stan

ce F i sher, an

ex pert i n the f i eld of f orens i c m tDNA anal y si s wi th the FB I, expl ai ned the di ff erence b etween nucl

ear and m tDNA. Nucle ar DNA i s uni que i n every i ndi vi dual
ex ce pt fo ride nt ica l t win s, wh er ea s mt DN A is n o t un iqu e t o an ind ividua l an d is sha r ed by all
maternal rel ati ve s. Dr. F i sh

er exp l ai ne d that a n m tDNA prof i l e c an be obta i ne d f rom ty pe s of evi dence f rom whi ch a n ucl ear DNA profi

le could n ot be obtai

ned, such as a hai r shaf t without
an y attached ti ssue. Dr. Fi sher testi f i ed th at she rec ei

ve d the f our col or-treated h

ai rs f or mtDN A testin g. Three o f the colo r-t reat ed hairs shared t he same m tDN A sequence as de fendant’s and Angeli ta’s mt DN A, mea ning t ha t ne it he rco uld be ex clu de d a s a so ur ce o f t ho se ha irs
. Ho we ve r , be ca us e a ll
ma ternal rel ative s sha re the sam

e m tDNA, Fi sher opi

ned that based on m

tDNA al one, nei

ther def endan t, An gel i ta, nor th ei

r m other coul

d be ex cl uded as a possi bl e sourc e of

the th ree c olort re at ed ha irs. She a ckno wledg ed t hat a co usin who shar ed t he sa me matr ili neal line of de sce nt would also have the s am

e m tDNA sequenc e. Fi scher al so explai ned that the m

tDNA sequenc e sh are d by A ng el i ta a nd de f en da nt wasrare a

nd wou l d e xp ec t to be

se en i n n o m ore th an .39 % of t he Hisp anic po pulat ion, or app ro ximately 4 o ut of e ver y 1,0 00 u nre late d Hisp anics. One o f the col or-treated h

ai rs con tai ne d i ns uf f i ci en t DNA to obtai n a n m tDNA seq uen ce.1-06-0271

11

The parties s

tipulated that if ca

ll ed to t estif

y, Sergean

t Paul McCurton would testif y tha t on F eb rua ry 9, 1 991 , h e c onta

cte d B l an ca at her res i de nc e a

nd req ue ste d that i

t be se arc he d f or
an y b l un t ob j ec ts th at m ay b e m i ss i n g, t h at th e r es i den ce

wa s s ea rc h ed , a n d th at n o su ch ob j ec ts
were f ound to b e m

i ssi ng. T he jur y fo un d d efe nd an t gu ilt y o f fir st de gr ee mur de r . Aft er de fen da nt wa s fo un d e ligible for the death pena

lty, the trial

court sentence d hi

m to a term of n

atural l if e i n pri son. Thi s appeal followed. Defe ndan t fi rst contends that t he trial

court erred by

adm ittin g ot her cri

me s evi dence. Sp ec i f i ca l l y , de f en da n t as se rtsth at th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on b y al l owi n g th e S tate to i ntroduc e detai

l s of Blanca’ s m

urder th rough the testim

ony of R anger Ga rza. The det er minatio n as t o w het her evidenc e is re levant and a dmissible is within t he so und di screti on of the tri al cou rt, a nd i ts ru l i ng wi l l not b e re ve rs ed ab sent a cl ea r ab us e of di screti on
resu l tin g i n m an i f est pre j udice to the d

ef endan t. People v. Morgan , 197 Il l . 2d 404 , 455 (2 001). The re co rd sho ws t hat , p rio r t o t rial, t he St at e filed a mot ion in limine se ek i n g to int r o du ce ev ide nc e o f Bla nc a’ s 1 99 6 mu r de r . T he St at e c laime d t ha t de fen da nt mur de r ed his mot her t o p re vent her fro m im plicat ing him i

n Angelita ’s mur der and t hat bot h Blanca and Angeli ta w ere murde red in a sim il ar manner. T hus, t he St ate argu ed t hat evidence o f Bl anca’s
m urder wasad

m i ss i bl e a s oth er c ri mesev i de nc e i n or de r to estab l i sh

de f en da nt’ s c ons ci

ous ne ss of guil t and modus operandi

as w el l as to des cri

be the c i rcum stan ces l eadi ng to de f endan t’s a rrest. The trial court ruled that the detail s of Bl anca’ s m urder could not be used as other cri me s evi dence b ecause there was n o evi dence conn

ectin g defen dant to t hat crim

e and theref

ore barred1-06-0271

12

the State f rom i m pl y i ng th at def endan t comm i tted that m

urder. Th

e court al so rul ed, h owev er, t ha t t he wit ne ss es co uld t es t ify t o t he st ep s t ha t we r e t ak en du r ing t he co ur se o f t he ir invest igat ion. Pu rs ua n t to th e tr i al cou rt’ s r ul i n g, R an ger G ar za testi f i ed th at h e w as as si gn ed to i n v esti ga te B l an ca ’s m ur der i n 19 96 . Ran

ger G ar za tes ti f i ed th at h e i n i ti al l y h el pe d e x ca v ate Bl anca’ s body , which was l ocated in a sh

al low grave i

n a sem i-b rushy area approxim

ately 60 yard s f rom he r ap artm en t com plex . A cc ordi

ng to Ra ng er G arz a, B l an

ca ’s bod y wa s n aked f rom the wai st down and wrapped nea tly in a bed sh eet, which

ma tched the beddi

ng that was i

nsi de her apartment. There were n o signs of f

orced entry i

nto Blan ca’s apartm

ent, and the m

edi cal
ex amin er rul ed t ha t t he ca us e o f d ea t h w as st r an gu lat io n a nd t ha t Bla nc a w as su ffo ca t ed by a pla stic sh opping b ag bei

ng pl aced over her h

ead. Ranger Garza f

urther test if

ie d that he contacted the Elgi n p ol i ceaf

ter B l an ca wa s m urdere d, th

at he h el pe d the El

gi n p ol i cei n th ei r i nv es ti ga ti on wh en t he y su bse qu en t ly ca me t o T ex as , an d t ha t he an d t he E lgin po lice int er vie we d d efe nd an t in Tex as a nd ob tai ne d sa m pl es of his b l ood, hai

r and sa l i va . Defe ndan t clai ms that Ranger Garza’s testi mony constituted im

properly adm itted ot her
cr imes evidence . D efenda nt asse rt s t hat t his te st imony serve d no legit imate p ur po se be cau se t he evi dence was

in suf fi ci ent to co nne ct him

to Bl anca’ s m

urder and that admi

tt in g detail s of that murd er was highly prejud icial becau se it co nveyed t o t he jur y that he mur der ed his mo t her . T he St at e r es po nd s t ha t t es t imo ny r eg ar din g t he inve st iga t io n int o Bla nc a’ s d ea t h w as pr o pe r ly admi tt ed to expl ain

the cou rse of the inv

estigation that led to defendan t’s arrest and that, because this testim ony was not ot her cri

me s evi dence, the State was not required to show a nexus b etween1-06-0271

13

defen dant and Bl

anca’ s m urder. Alternati

vel y, the State argues that if

the testim

ony c onstituted ot her cr imes evidence , a ny err or in its ad mission wa s har mless in li ght of t he o ver whelming
evi den ce of def endan t’s gu i l t. W e f i n d th at th e te sti mon y re ga rdi n g B l an ca ’s de ath wa s prop erl

y ad m i tted i n ord er to
ex pl ai n th e c our se

of th e p oli ce

i n v esti ga ti on i n to A n ge l i ta’ s m ur der a n d th e ev en ts l eadi n g to defend ant ’s ar re st . O ur sup re me co ur t has r eco gnized t hat evidenc e o f the co ur se o f the invest igat ion int o a cr ime and t he eve nt s lead ing up t o a n ar re st ar e r elevant when ne ces sar y and im port ant to a full

expl anati on of the State’s case. See People v. Hayes , 139 Ill . 2d 89, 130 ( 19 90 ) ( po lice t es t imo ny r eg ar din g u nsu cc es sfu l at t emp t s t o lo ca t e d efe nd an t ad mit t ed t o ex pla in the two- week delay

between wh

en def endan t was iden

tif ie d by a wi tness an d when he was
arrested), overruled on other gr ounds , People v. Tisdel , 201 I ll . 2d 210, 219 (200 2); see also People v. Johnson , 11 4 Il l . 2d 170 , 19 3-9 4 (1 986 ) (w i

tne ss tes ti mony tha t sh e n oti f i ed pol i ceof
an un re l ate d i n ci den t wi th de f en da n t, w h i ch ul ti m ate l y l ed to de f en da n t’s i den ti f i ca ti on an d a rre st, admit t ed t o r ebut sug ges t ion t hat po lice unjust ifi ably tar get ed d efenda nt eight mont hs aft er t he offenses o ccur red ); People v. B yrd , 43 Ill . App. 3d 735, 742 (1976) (“Inform in g the trier[] of fa

ct of c ons equ ent ial ste ps in t he invest igat ion o f a cr ime is normal pr oc edu re and is impo rt ant t o t he f ull pres en tation of th e State’ s ca se” ). In t his case , t he t rial co ur t re aso nably cou ld have c onc luded t hat t est imony reg ar ding t he invest igat ion int o B lanca’s dea t h was re levant and ne ces sar y to explain t o t he jur y the leng t hy course of the i

nve stigati on that began wi th Ange li ta’s m urder in Ill in ois i n 1991 an d cul mi nated with de fen

dant’s arrest i

n Texas in 2002. Most im

port antly , Ranger Garza’s

testim ony e xpl ai ned1-06-0271

14

why the in vestigation i

nto Angel ita’s murder was

reopened i

n 1996, approxi

ma tely fi ve y ears af ter t he cr ime o cc ur r ed an d a ft er t he ca se ha d g o ne “c o ld. ” W it ho ut su ch t es t imo ny, t he jur y co uld ha ve be en left t o wo nd er wh y po lice fo cu se d t he ir in ve st iga t io n o n d efe nd an t , Ang elit a’ s ha lf brother. See Byrd , 43 I ll. A pp . 3d at 74 2 ( no t ing t ha t t he St at e mu st be pe r mit t ed t o mak e s o me exp lana t io n wh y a p re vio us ly unid ent ified d efe nda nt wa s a rr es t ed and sho wn t o t he v ict im of a
cr ime becau se “[ i]f this w er e no t per mitt ed d efense co unse l cou ld play upo n it in ar gument , a sking why the defe ndan t - o f al l the m en i n the world - was

on trial , insi

nuatin g that t he accus ed was
arrested wi

thout reas on”). To t hat end, t he r eco rd sho ws t hat Rang er Gar za’s t est imony was limi t ed t o e xplaining t he steps in the in vestigation i

nto Angel ita’s murder, speci

fi cally those that developed i

n 1996 when Blanca was found dead . Ranger Garza did not test if y that de fendant was a su spect in Bl anca’s murd er , a nd t he t rial co ur t sus t ained s ever al of d efense co unse l’s objec t ions a nd t her eby preclude d Ranger Garza f rom testif yi ng to t he contents of h

is conversations wi

th the Elgi

n poli ce. The re co rd also sho ws t hat t he pr os ecu t ion abide d by t he co ur t ’s r uling du ring o pening a nd closi ng s tatem en t and di d not i m pl y to the j ury

that de f endan t was a sus pect i n B l anca’ s m

urder. In o pening s t at ement s, t he pr os ecu t ion t old t he jur or s t hat t hey wo uld hea r e vidence t hat t he invest igat ion int o Ang elita’ s murd er beca me a “co ld cas e” in 19 91, t hat Blanca was fou nd murd er ed in T exas in 199 6, and t hat t he invest igat ion int o B lanca’s dea t h “jumpst ar t [e d] ” t he invest igat ion int o Ang elita’ s murd er . I n clos ing ar gument s, t he pr os ecu t ion made only a pa ssing
r ef er en ce t o Ga r za ’s t es t imo ny, t elli ng t he ju ry t ha t it wa s imp o r t an t be ca us e “ it sh o w[ ed ] wh y, after so ma

ny ye ars, this c ase was re-opened.”1-06-0271

15

Our revi ew of the record therefore establ is hes that the State did not in tro duce evi

dence t hat defend ant co mmi

t t ed o t her , u nre late d cr imes. Ra t her , it intr od uce d r elevant evidenc e o f the
course of the i nv esti gation i nto An gel i ta’sdeath and of the events l

eadi ng to de f endan t’s a rrest. E ve n a ss umin g, as de fen da nt ar gu es , t ha t it wa s u nne ce ss ar y t o elic it t he de t ails o f t he co nd it io n in whi ch Bl anca’ s body

was f ound, the trial

court ulti ma tely wei ghed the probativ

e val ue of Ran ger Garza’s testim

ony a gai nst i ts prejudi ci al eff ect. Under the to tali

ty of the ci

rcumstances, we cannot say that t he tr ial

cou rt abused its discret ion by all owing t estimony regarding Blanca’s death
. Moreover, even if the testi mony regardin g Bl anca’ s death, i

ncl udin g details of the m

ann er in whi ch h er body was f

ound, constituted im

properly adm itted ot her cri

me s evi dence, we f

in d that the error was harml

ess error in

li ght of the overwhel

mi ng ev ide nce of de fen

dant’s gui lt. Our
su pr eme co ur t ha s r ep ea t ed ly held t ha t t he impr o pe rint r o du ct io n o f o t he rcr imes ev ide nc e is h ar m l es s e rror wh en a def en da n t i s n ei th er pr ej udi ce d n

or d en i ed a f ai r tri al b as ed up on i ts adm i ssi on. See , e.g. , People v. Nieves , 19 3 Ill. 2d 513 , 53 0 (2 000 ); People v. Hall , 194 Ill . 2d 305 , 33 9 (2 000 ) (“

A l thou gh the err one ousad

m i ss i on of othe r-c ri mesev i de nc e ord

i na ril y cal l s f or
re v er sa l , the ev i den ce

m us t h av e b een a m ate rial f ac tor i n th e def en da n t’s con v i cti on such th at, wi thout the e

vi den ce, the v erdi

ct l i kel y would ha ve be en di f f eren t”). In thi s case, f

orensi c scientis

t Pitchf ord t estif ie d that t he sperm

found i n A ngel ita’s rectal
swa b matc hed d efenda nt ’s nuc lear D NA pr ofile and t hat t he pr oba bili t y of t hat matc h oc cur ring
wa s 1 i n 1 80 bi l l i on. Dr. Fi

sh er’ s te sti m ony es tab l i sh ed tha t the col or-tre ate d hai

rs f oun d on An gelita’s body c ontaine d defen

dant’s m tDNA. In addi

tion to t he un

contested DNA evi

dence,1-06-0271

16

Cuella r testifi ed to several i

ncri mi natin g statements m

ade by defen dant. Specif

ic al ly , in May 1995, d ef endan t told Cu el l ar an d Bl anca that wh en

he got out of the h

ospi tal “h e was goi ng to f
--- both [C uel l ar an d Bl anca], l i ke h e had don e wi th A ngi e wh en he kil l ed h er,” a nd th at “h e had f
---- d An gie al l n igh t long, even

though she was

dead.” Approxi

ma tely four weeks l

ater, when de f en da n t an d B l an ca wereat C

ue l l ar ’s h om e, de f en da n t sa i d th at “ h e w as goi n g to k i l l b oth [Bla nca an d Cuella r], li ke he h ad done wi

th Angi e.” Moreover, Po zos testifi ed that he saw defen dant in the home he sh ared with A

ngel ita an d ot hers onl

y h ours after Angel

ita was l ast seen al i ve , an d the te sti mony also e sta bl i sh ed tha t de f en da nt wasne ve r s een j oi ni ng i n th e s ea rch f or Angelita aft er she w as missing. Given t his ove rw helming evidence of d efenda nt ’s gu ilt, a nd t he fact t hat t he St at e, as p re viou sly not ed, did no t emphas ize Ra nger Gar za’s t est imony dur ing openi ng or closi

ng argum ents, we cann

ot say that t he resul

t o f def endan t’s trial would ha ve b een diffe r en t ha d t he t es t imo ny r eg ar din g B lan ca ’s de at h be en ex clu de d. Ac co r din gly, an y er r o rin adm ittin g that t estim

ony was harm

le ss. See Nieves , 193 Ill . 2d at 530-31 ( fi ndi ng that prejudi

ci al eff ect from isolated ref

erence to defen

dant’s cri mi nal activ ity in another state was overshadowed by the subst ant ial evi

dence of de fendant ’s guilt) ; Hall , 194 Ill . 2d at 340 (improper testim ony tha t defend ant abus ed his sp ou se w as no t a mat er ial facto r in co nvictio n and t her efo re did no t war ra nt
rever sal where evidence o f defendant ’s guilt w as o verwhe lm ing); People

v. Lew is , 165 Ill . 2d 305, 34 7 ( 19 95 ) ( t es t imo ny t ha t de fen da nt wa s a lre ad y in cu st o dy w hile p o lice we r e s ea r ch ing fo rhim, adm i tted to show steps i

n the pol i ce i nv esti gation, wa s n

ot undul y prej udicial

wh ere the j ury

he ard
ne i ther d i rect ev i den ce n or argum en t regard i ng th e rea son d

ef endan t was i n custody ). Defend ant at t empt s t o mit igat e t his ove rw helming evidence by point ing t o t he t est imony1-06-0271

17

of the m edi cal exam in er, Dr. Blum, that t he autopsy coul d not defi ni tivel y rul e out co nsensual

sex as a separate occurrence f rom the hom

ic ide . However, there was absol utely no evi dence pr es en ted at tr i al to s ug ge st th

at def en da n t h ad con se n sual i n tercou rs e wi th A n ge l i ta. In f ac t, defen dant ma de a statemen

t t o Cuell ar and Bl anca that he h

ad sex wi th Ange li ta after he ha

d ki l l ed h er . M ore ov er , D r. B l

um also t esti f

i ed th at th e l ack of b l un t tra um a or b ru i si n g to An gelita’s vagi nal or rect al areas was cons is

tent with a wom

en wh o had gi ven bi rth and who had possi bl y be en sex ual l y ass aul ted, an d Pozos testif

i ed th at An

gel i ta ha d gi ven b i rth to thei r ch i l d. Defendan t also at tempts t o mitigate t he overwhelm in g evi dence by

arguing that because all ma t er na l re lat ive s s ha r e t he sa me mt DN A, ne it he rde fen da nt , Ang elit a, Bla nc a, no r“c o us in Ton y ” c oul d b e ex cl ud ed as a s ource of th e c ol or-t

re ate d h ai rs . D ef en da n t f ur th er poi n ts to To rr isi’s te st imony reg ar ding Ma car d’s P rinciple and hair t ra nsfers among peo ple who live t o ge t he r , an d a r gu es t ha t be ca us e d efe nd an t , Ang elit a, Bla nc a a nd T o ny all liv ed in t he sa me home, none co uld be e xclude d as t he so ur ce o f the dyed ha irs. Ho weve r, Lee’ s t est imony establ is hed that the color-treat ed hai rs did n ot origi nate from An gelita. Moreover, although mtDNA anal

ysi s could not elim

in ate Blanca or To ny

as the sour ce of those hairs, we nevertheless be lieve t ha t t he mt DN A e vid en ce , co nsid er ed alo ng wit h t he o t he rev ide nc e p r es en t ed at t r ial,
ov er wh el m i n gl y pr ov ed de f en da n t gui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. In r eac hing t his co nclusio n, w e r eject defend ant ’s claim tha t t he er ro r in ad mitt ing t he ot her cr imes evidence was co mpo unde d whe n t he t rial co ur t failed t o g ive the jury a limi t ing in struction regardin

g the purpose for which i

t could be consi

dered. Ini

tial ly , we fi nd that de fen da nt ha s w aiv ed t his c laim be ca us e h e d id n o t r eq ue st a limit ing inst ruc t io n o rr ais e t his1-06-0271

18

particular cla

im in hi s postt rial

motion. See People v. Enoch , 122 Il l . 2d 176 , 186 (1 988) (f

ail ure to rais e obj ection at trial

and i ncl ude the obj ection i

n a posttrial

motion resul

ts in wai ver of that i ss ue on ap pe al ). Ev en ab se n t wa i v er an d a ss um i n g th at te sti mon y re ga rdi n g B l an ca ’s de ath
con sti tuted othe r cr i mesev i de nc e, th e Sta te di d n ot em phas izethe

tes ti mony dur i ng ope ni ng or clo sing ar gu men t s a nd an y er r o r by t he co ur t in fa iling t o inst ruc t t he jur y wo uld be ha r mles s in li ght of the overwhel

mi ng ev ide nce of de fen

dant’s gui lt. See People v. Jackson , 357 Ill . App. 3d 313 , 3 21- 22 ( 200 5) (finding t rial co ur t ’s failure t o g ive a limi t ing instr uct ion t o t he jur y reg ar ding other cr i mes e vi den ce h arm l ess wh ere the ev

i den ce of def endan t’s gu i l t was n ot clos el y ba l anced). De fe nd an t ne xt co nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed by a dm it t ing alle ge d h ea r sa y t es t imo ny. A s p rev i ous l y note d, w e re

vi ew the tri al cou rt’ s dec i si on as to th

e re l evan cean d a dm i ss i bi l i ty of
evi den ce un der an abuse of d i scre tion stan dard. Morgan , 197 Ill . 2d at 455. De f en da n t i n i ti al l y cl ai m s th at th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on b y ad m i tti n g i n to
evi den ce B l anca’ s statemen

ts that “ she kn

ew al l the ti me i t was h i m .” The record shows that under di rect exam in ation, Cuel

la r testifi ed that she was v

is ited at her hom e by defen dant and Bl

anca i n Jun e 1995. Over def

ense couns el ’s obj ection, Cuel la r t es t ified t ha t , du r ing t ha t visit , Bla nc a t o ld h er t ha t “sh e fe lt gu ilt y bec au se she kn ew all t he t ime who had kil l ed A ngi e,” a nd th at “s he kne w al l the ti me i t was h i m .” A ccordi

ng to Cuel

l ar, defend ant t hen bec ame up set and s aid t hat “he wa s go ing t o k ill bot h [Blanc a and Cue llar], like he had d one wit h Angie. ” T he t rial co ur t instr uct ed t he jur y that Blanca ’s st at ement was being of f ere d f or th e l i m i ted pur pos e of sh owi ng “ wh y a p ers on s ai

d w ha t a p ers on s ai

d,” tha t i t wa s n ot being o ffered t o s how who killed t he vict im, and t hat t he jur y “shou ld no t ” co nsider t he st at ement1-06-0271

19

f or that purp ose. De fen da nt as se r t s t ha t Bla nc a’ s s t at eme nt t o Cu ella rwa s ina dmis sa ble he ar sa y bec au se it pla ced i nto evide nce the sub stance of Bl

anca’ s out-o f-court conversation wi th Cuella r, and that the statement was h

igh ly prejudi ci al because it conve ye d to the jury

that even def

endan t’s own mother beli

eved he was gu il

ty of Angeli

ta’s murd er. Defendant also claims that Blanca’s statement consti

tut ed i mproper opin

ion testi mony because there was no evi

dence to in

dic ate that she h ad personal

knowle dge of the events surroundi ng A ngel ita’s death. We di sagree.

“‘T o qual

i f y as h ea rs ay , a n out- of -c our t sta tem en t m us t b e of f er ed to es tab l i sh th e tr uth of the m atter asserted.’ ” People v. Rivas , 302 Ill . App. 3d 421, 431 (1998), quo ting People v. Simms , 14 3 I l l . 2d

15 4, 1 73 (1 99 1) . M ore ov er , a n out- of -c our t sta tem en t of f er ed to prov e i

ts eff ect on a listener’s m

in d or t o show why

the li stener subs equentl

y a cted as he di

d is not hearsay
and i s ad m i ssi bl e. People v. Thomas , 296 Il l . Ap p. 3d 48 9, 499 ( 1998)
. In th i s c as e, our

re v i ew sh ows th at B l an ca ’s sta tem en t wa s n ot of f er ed to prov e th

e tr uth of the m atter ass erted therei

n, i.e. , that B l an

ca kn ew de f en da n t ki l l ed A n ge l i ta, b ut r ath

er to
ex pl ai n w hy def endan t sub seq uen tly stated that “h

e was goi ng to ki l l both [B l anca a

nd C uel l ar], li ke he h ad done wi

th Angi e.” Accordin

gly , Blan ca’s stateme

nt did n ot constitute hearsay

and we f i nd n o abu se of

di scre tion i n i ts adm i ssi on i nto ev i den ce. Def endan t’s a rgum en t that Bl anca’ s statemen

t shoul d not hav e b een

related to the j ury because she h

ad no perso nal

knowledge of the events surro undin g Angel ita’s death is l

ikewi se without meri

t. Defendan

t’s argumen

t again assum es that Bla

nca’s statement was b ei

ng off ered as subs t ant ive evidenc e o f his guilt. Ho weve r, as no t ed, Blanca ’s st at ement was not offer ed t o p ro ve1-06-0271

20

t hat defend ant killed Angelit a, and t her efo re whet her Blanca had p er so nal kno wledg e is irr elevant i n de ter m i n i n g w h eth er th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on b y ad m i tti n g B l an ca ’s sta tem en t i n to
evi den ce. We al so rej ect def

endan t’s a rgum en t that Bl anca’ s statemen

t was h i ghl y prej udicial
. Ini tial ly , the trial court gave the j ury a l

im iti ng i nstruction regardi

ng Bl anca’ s statemen

t. Although defendan t claim s that instruct ion was “

weak” because it contained no defi ni tive prohibi

tion against
co nsider ing t he st at ement subs t ant ively, ou r r eview e st ablishes t hat t he t rial co ur t ’s ad monit ions suffi ciently conveyed to the jury the lim ited pur pose for which it could co nsider Blanca’s statem en t. There i s a strong pre sum

pti on tha t ju rors f oll ow the i nstructi ons gi

ven b y the c ourt ( Simms , 143 Il

l . 2d at 17 4), an

d noth i ng i n the rec ord reb

uts tha t presu m pti on. Fu r t he r mo r e, t he ad miss io n o f he ar sa y evid en ce is ha r mles s e rr o rif t he r e is no r ea so na ble proba bi l i ty th e v erdi ct would ha

ve be en di f f eren t had the h ears ay be en ex cl uded
. People v. Sample , 326 Ill . App. 3d 914, 924-25 (2001). I n thi s case, the ev ide nce agai nst def endan t was overwhel mi ng, and we the

refore concl

ude that the result of def

endan t’s trial would not have been di f f eren t had Blanca’ s statemen

t bee n exc l uded
. Sample , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 925. De f en da nt a l so c l ai m s th at the tri al cou rt er red by al l owi ng the State to play a p orti on of Cuella r’s vi deotaped st atemen

t o n redi rect exam in ation i n wh ic h Cuel la r related a statemen

t made by Bl anca to “Luci

nda.” The record shows that, during Cuel la r’s cross-exam

in ation, def ense couns el

pla ye d
va ri ous porti ons of

Cuel l ar’s vi deotaped statem en t in an ef f ort to disc

redi t her tri al testi mony . In one particul

ar port ion of

that cro ss-exam

in ation, def ense couns el

pla ye d an answer that Cuell

ar1-06-0271

21

ga ve i n r es pon se to an as sista nt S tate ’s A ttorn ey ’s req ue st th at s he rel atethe en ti re c onv ers ati on that t oo k place i

n 1995 when Cuel

lar visited Blan

ca and defen

dant in the hospital . Defense
cou n se l th en pl ay ed Cuel l ar ’s v i de otap ed

answ er , i n wh i ch sh e r el ate d th e c on v er sa ti on an d ev en ts th at too k p l ac e d

uri n g th at v i si t, i n cl udi n g d ef en da n t ex pos i n g h i m se l f an d m ak i n g th re ats to Cuella r and Bl anca. The f

in al three sentence s of that answer that were play ed to t he j ury were as follows: “ So we went to eat. But I never forgot about that. Then i n the restaurant, [Blan

ca] wanted me to take her t o Ali ce because her car had broken, and we went t o Ali ce.” Defense counsel then stopped the videotape and asked Cuel la r if she gav e that answer. The State objected that Cuell ar’s en tire ans wer to that question had n ot been pla ye d. Defense counsel

responded that the enti re answer h

ad been pla ye d, and the court ruled that the Stat e could b rin g the enti re answer out on redi

rect ex am i na tion
. Wh il e at a sideb ar durin

g Cuella r’s redi rect exam in ation, the State inf

ormed the court t hat it i ntended to play

Cuella r’s enti re videotaped st atemen

t, arguing that defe

nse couns el

had taken the stat emen

t o ut o f context. T he trial court st ated t hat “it was fai rly disj ointed when [defens e counsel] did i

t,” and ruled that the statemen t, incl udin g any prior consi stent stat em

ent contain

ed therein, rebutted t he i

nf erence of recent fab

rication whi

ch h ad been im pli ed by defen se counsel du ri n g Cue l l ar ’s

cross -e x am

i n ati on . Th e S tate pr oce eded

to pl ay th e v i de otap ed sta tem en t, in cl udin g the answer that Cuel

la r gave to t he ass is

tant St ate’s Attorney that the State had argued was i ncom ple te. That answer ended wi th the fol lowi ng two sentences, wh

ic h ha d not been pl

ay ed by def en se c ouns el : “An

d tha t was w hen she tal ked a bout the cas e wi th Lu ci nda . The n told he r, Luci nda, that he ha

d said that he was goin

g to kil l us and f --- us both.” Defen se counsel obje cted,1-06-0271

22

and t he co ur t ru led t hat defens e co unse l had br ou ght t he ans wer ou t on c ro ss- examinat ion and that the State was

perm i tted to show that the a

nswer was i

nc omp l ete. Defend ant claims tha t Blanca ’s st at ement was inadmissible hear say t hat ser ved no legi timate purpo se. Defendant further asserts t hat because the stat emen t was played over defense
co un se l’s o bje ct io n a nd wit ho ut a limit ing inst ruc t io n, t he jur y wa s g ive n t he impr es sio n t ha t it could consider the stat emen t for its t rut h. Defendan

t claim s that t he error was prejudici al b ecause it bo lst er ed Cu ella r ’s cr ed ibilit y, w hic h w as a p ivo t al is su e a t t r ial. We initially not e t hat defend ant has w aived his c laim regar ding t he lack of a lim iting in struction because

he di d not request t he j ury b e gi ven a lim iti ng i nstruction. See People v. Smith , 36 2 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 062 , 10 82 ( 200 5) (noti ng tha t the f ai l ure to req ue st a l i m i ti ng i ns tructi on
resu l ts i n w ai ver of a ny obj ection on a

ppea l to the l ack of

a l i m i tin g i nstructi on). Mo re ove r, altho ugh a pr ior co nsist ent st at ement is nor mally inadmissible hear say, s uch a sta tem en t i s adm i ss i bl e w he n i t reb utsa c ha rge of rec en t f ab rica ti on a nd when i t wa s m ad e p rior to the al l eged f abri cation. People v. Richardson , 348 Ill . App. 3d 796, 802 (2004). Our r evi ew of the rec ord reveal s th

at d ef en se cou ns el ’s cros s- exam

i na ti on of Cu el l ar wasf ocu se d on di scre di tin g he r testi mony by pl ay i ng p ortion s of

he r vi deotaped statem en t, and that the tria l court had a reasona

bl e b asis f or cha racteri zi ng th at use of the tape as “ di sj oin

ted” an d theref ore al lowi ng the state to pla

y the entire s tatement. Moreover, t he record shows that defen se counsel brought out the specifi

c di sputed answer on cross-exam in ation an d that counsel pl

ay ed an in compl ete answer be fore aski

ng Cuel la r, “Di d you an swer the question i n that way?” Un

der th es e c i rc um sta n ce s, we ca n n ot s ay th at th e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on b y al l owi n g th e S tate1-06-0271

23

t o p lay the p or t ion o f Cuellar ’s video t ape d st at ement in which she r elat ed t he st at ement made by Blanca to Luc i

nda
. Fi na l l y , we f i nd tha t an y err or by the tri al cou rt i n a ll owi ng the di spute d por

ti on of Cuel l ar ’s v i de otap ed

sta tem en t wa s h ar m l es s. A l th oug h de f en da n t cl ai m s th at th e S tate
em phasi zed Blanca’ s statemen

t t o Cuell ar durin g rebuttal cl

osin g argumen

ts, t he record shows t hat t he St at e made one re fere nce t o t he st at ement dur ing clos ing ar gument s. I n light o f the overwhel mi ng ev ide nce of de fen

dant’s gui lt, we cann

ot say that t he resul

t o f def endan t’s trial
wo uld have been d iff

er ent had t he St at e no t made t his refer ence or had t he disp ut ed p or t ion o f the vi deotaped statem en t not bee n pl ay ed. Sample , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 925. Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Judgm ent aff irm ed. J. GO RDON

and O’ MA

LL EY, JJ ., conc

ur.