2022 IL App (1st) 190225-U 

SECOND DIVISION

May 24, 2022

No. 1-19-0225 

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

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

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of 

 ) Cook County

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 13 CR 15781 

 ) 

WILLIE WOODS, ) 

 ) Honorable Mary Margaret Brosnahan, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court.

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

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We find that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a continuance; 

when it prohibited defendant from introducing a self-serving telephone recording 

in which he denied being the killer; when it denied defendant’s request for a 

second-degree murder jury instruction; and we find that defendant is not entitled 

to relief under the plain error doctrine based on comments the prosecutor made 

during closing arguments. 

¶ 2 Defendant Willie Woods was tried by a jury and convicted for the first-degree murder of 

Dominique Green. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a 

continuance to secure the testimony of a witness. Defendant also argues the trial court erred 
1-19-0225 

2 

when it barred him from introducing a recording of a telephone call that he made from jail in 

response to the State’s introduction of other telephone call recordings. Defendant also argues the 

trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on second-degree murder. Lastly, defendant 

argues he was denied a fair trial because the jury expressed that they were afraid of him and his 

associates and because the State made prejudicial comments during its closing argument that 

played on the jury’s fears. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On August 1, 2012, Dominique Green was shot 10 times. He died at the scene of the 

shooting. One bullet entered between his eyes, one entered his left eye, and one entered in the 

back of his scalp. He was also shot twice in the left arm, and one of the bullets entered, exited, 

and reentered his left forearm in a manner that was consistent with the victim holding his hand 

up to defend himself. Green was also shot in the chest, shoulder, side, groin, and pelvis. All of 

the bullets were fired from the same weapon and shell casings were recovered from the scene by 

investigators. 

¶ 5 In a police report created the night of the shooting, officers indicated that they spoke to 

Daviond Dalton. Dalton, who was a minor at the time, reportedly told police that he saw people 

arguing, heard gunshots, and then saw a man with braided hair holding a gun and fleeing. When 

police attempted to talk to Dalton a week later, Dalton’s mother informed the officers that Dalton 

would not talk to them. Dalton gave no further statements to police and was not brought before 

the grand jury. Defense counsel issued a subpoena for Dalton at his address in Illinois a few 

weeks before trial, but he no longer lived at that address. One week before trial, a process server 

served Dalton with the subpoena at his new residence in Indiana. Defense counsel spoke to 

Dalton on the phone after he was served, but Dalton indicated that he would not be coming to 
1-19-0225 

3 

court. Dalton gave the phone to his mother who told defense counsel that Dalton did not 

remember anything and that he would have to be arrested before he would come to testify. The 

State indicated that it had been unable to serve Dalton with a subpoena but reported that Dalton 

had called the prosecutor to indicate that he would not come to court.

¶ 6 The day before the trial was set to begin, defense counsel requested a continuance to 

secure Dalton as a defense witness. The State had previously requested a continuance to secure 

the presence of Darian Broomfield as a witness and the State had located Broomfield, so it was 

ready to proceed. Defense counsel indicated that the presence of Broomfield at trial would affect 

the defense strategy and indicated that the defense was not ready for trial without Dalton’s 

presence, despite previously answering ready for trial. The trial court questioned defense counsel 

about the importance of Dalton as a witness since the defense had not listed him as a witness and 

had not even mentioned him to the court until right before trial. Defense counsel had previously 

told the court that she did not intend to call any witnesses other than those listed in the State’s 

discovery and counsel filed a written answer making the same assertion. 

¶ 7 Defense counsel informed the court that even if the court issued a warrant for Dalton, it 

would not be valid for Indiana without counsel filing motions in Indiana, which would require 

more time. The trial court stated that it might be willing to delay jury selection for three days if 

counsel had a lead on securing Dalton as a witness before jury selection started. The trial court 

denied the motion. Defense counsel did not file anything else with the court related to securing 

Dalton as a witness before trial. 

¶ 8 During jury selection, there were discussions about gangs and about whether the jurors 

could be fair and impartial upon hearing evidence about gangs and gang membership. At least 

three jurors shared, in the presence of the other potential jurors, personal experiences of being 
1-19-0225 

4 

affected by gang violence. Those potential jurors were excused. A handful of other potential 

jurors shared, in chambers, experiences that made them unable or unwilling to sit on the jury in 

this case. Those potential jurors were also excused. A jury was subsequently empaneled, and the 

trial was set to proceed the following day. 

¶ 9 Before the trial began the following morning, a deputy reported to the court that one of 

the jurors was having a panic attack and was indicating that he would not be able to sit as a juror 

on the case because of the nature of the case and the gang involvement. When the court 

questioned the juror in chambers, the juror indicated that he thought he could handle being a 

juror on the case but realized that he now wanted nothing to do with the case because it was gang 

related and because the defendant now knew the juror’s name. The juror recounted that other 

people in the jury room had expressed that they wished they were only listed as a number instead 

of by name, because now the defendant would know who they are. The juror, however, indicated

that he did not share his fears about the gang-related nature of the case with anyone else on the 

jury. The trial court excused this juror and replaced him with an alternate juror.

¶ 10 The trial began, and the State began calling its witnesses. During a recess on the first day 

of testimony, defense counsel again brought up Daviond Dalton to the court and stated that he 

was an important witness. Defense counsel explained that it would be impossible for the defense 

to go through the necessary procedures in Indiana to try to force Dalton to come to court before 

the end of trial. The trial court expressed its willingness to issue a warrant for Dalton if he was 

timely served and he still did not appear. There is no indication in the record that defense counsel 

ever filed anything in Indiana or took any further steps to secure Dalton’s presence once the trial 

began. 
1-19-0225 

5 

¶ 11 The trial continued with the State calling its witnesses. After testimony concluded on the 

first day of trial, the deputy reported to the court that one of the jurors indicated that she 

recognized someone in the gallery. The juror was brought into chambers and indicated that she 

was “a little scared” by the idea that the jury could convict the defendant and that the person she 

knew in the gallery could recognize her. The person the juror recognized in the gallery was 

someone she believed she had encountered in her prior employment. The trial court asked the 

juror if there was anything else making her feel fearful aside from possibly recognizing someone 

in the gallery, and the juror responded, “the trial. I think everyone is uncomfortable with that.” 

The juror denied hearing anything about the male juror that was excused that morning or hearing 

him talk about the case. She indicated that the excused juror just “kind of walked out. I don’t 

know what happened to him.”

¶ 12 The deputy indicated that jurors had spoken to him about their names being used in court. 

The deputy reported that jurors expressed that they were uneasy about their names being used in

open court because anyone could just Google their names. Defense counsel spoke to the woman 

in the gallery whom the juror thought might recognize her. Defense counsel confirmed that the 

woman in the gallery worked in the capacity described by the juror, but the woman in the gallery

indicated that she did not know any of the jurors. The trial judge instructed the juror to return the 

following day and to not mention the issue to her fellow jurors.

¶ 13 The following morning, the trial judge called the juror from the night before back into 

chambers. The juror expressed that her address was easy to find online and that she did not want 

her face to be out there. The trial judge asked the juror if anyone in the jury room was saying 

anything to make her think those things and the juror responded in the negative and stated that 

“this is me putting scenarios in my head.” The juror expressed concern about being recognized 
1-19-0225 

6 

and noted that “we are talking about gang shootings here.” When the juror returned to the jury 

room, she was crying. Both the prosecution and the defense agreed that the juror should be 

excused. She was called back into chambers. The juror told the court that she did not say 

anything to the other jurors about her concerns about the nature of the case or tell the other jurors

what was going on. The trial court excused this juror and replaced her with the second alternate.

¶ 14 At trial, Ladarius Norris testified that the victim, Dominique Green, was his best friend. 

Ladarius testified that he was driving when he saw Green standing on the corner of 

Independence and Lexington. Ladarius stopped to talk to Green and talked to him briefly before 

walking across the street to take a phone call. Ladarius heard gunshots and saw a black man 

holding a red or orange shirt over his head as he shot Green. Ladarius testified that the shooter 

was shorter than himself, even though he had previously told investigators that the shooter was 

tall. Ladarius described the weapon as being silver with an extended magazine on it. Ladarius did 

not see Green with a weapon. 

¶ 15 On cross-examination, Ladarius testified that defendant was not the shooter because the 

shooter’s build was littler, and the shooter’s skin was lighter than defendant’s skin. Ladarius 

testified that he never told police that defendant was the shooter, but instead testified that the 

police were the ones that told him that defendant was the shooter. Ladarius testified that Dariel 

Birdsong was one of the people in the area of the shooting and that Birdsong had dreadlocks 

while defendant did not have dreadlocks. Ladarius testified that his brother, Robert Norris, who 

would subsequently testify, was not present at the time of the shooting. 

¶ 16 Robert Norris, Ladarius’s brother who was also known as “Dolie,” testified. His 

testimony at trial contradicted the statements he gave to detectives, the video statement he gave 

to the state’s attorney, and his grand jury testimony. Dolie testified that the victim was a friend 
1-19-0225 

7 

and that he had known the victim his whole life. Dolie testified that he had known defendant for 

about 10 years because the two of them grew up in the same neighborhood. Dolie testified that 

he was not present in the area of the shooting, but that he spoke to detectives about the shooting 

after he was arrested for an unrelated matter 10 days later. Dolie testified that he told the 

detectives he was not there, but the detectives told him that they would help him with his case if 

he identified defendant as the shooter in this case. He testified that the detective gave him 

statements to say and that they rehearsed the statements. Dolie admitted that he identified 

defendant in a statement to detectives, in a video statement in the presence of an assistant state’s 

attorney, and in grand jury testimony. 

¶ 17 In his statement to investigators Dolie stated that defendant killed Green, who was also 

known as “Snoop.” Dolie stated that he was at Lexington and Lawndale with several other 

people when defendant and Green started fighting about who could sell cannabis on the block. 

Dolie stated that defendant went into an alley, reemerged, and hit Green in the face with a 

handgun before returning to the alley. Dolie stated that defendant emerged from the alley again 

with his orange t-shirt covering his face and ran up behind Green, grabbed him and turned him 

around, and then shot him about eight times. Dolie saw defendant get into the backseat of a 

waiting SUV and Dolie himself then got into the SUV too. Defendant told Dolie that “it was 

either [defendant] or Snoopy.” Defendant threw his shirt out of the vehicle’s window and gave 

the firearm to the driver. Dolie described the weapon as a silver and black Baretta with a 30-

round magazine. 

¶ 18 The prosecution played Dolie’s video statement for the jury and introduced his grand jury 

testimony, which were substantially the same. An assistant state’s attorney testified that Dolie

told her before giving his grand jury testimony that he was not threatened or promised anything 
1-19-0225 

8 

for his testimony. Dolie testified before the grand jury that he was not threatened or promised 

anything for his testimony, and he made the same statement in his video-recorded interview with 

detectives. 

¶ 19 Dolie testified before the grand jury that defendant and the victim belonged to different 

gangs. Dolie stated that the two gangs got along with one another and that they all sold drugs 

near Lexington and Lawndale. Defendant and Green, however, had a dispute about drug 

territory. Dolie testified that he was with his brother, defendant, and others at Lexington and 

Central Park when they received a phone call and were alerted that Green was “spazzing out” 

and that they needed to go calm him down. When they arrived at Green’s location, Dolie and 

Green spoke about selling cannabis until defendant stepped in. Defendant and Green started 

arguing and then started fistfighting. Dolie broke up the fight, but defendant and Green 

exchanged more words and then defendant left and went into the nearby alley. Dolie and Green 

started walking away until defendant reemerged from the alley holding a silver and black gun. 

Defendant hit Green in the face with the gun. Defendant returned to the alley after hitting Green, 

but then came back from the alley 30 seconds later with his orange shirt wrapped around his face 

and head. Dolie was certain it was defendant and recognized defendant’s outfit.

¶ 20 Dolie testified to the grand jury that defendant grabbed Green from behind. When Green 

turned around, defendant yelled at him and pointed the gun at him. Green was unarmed, 

shielding his face with his hands, and said, “are you gonna kill me?” Dolie then watched 

defendant shoot Green in the face. Green fell down and defendant stood over him and “finished 

him off” with 10 more gunshots. Dolie testified that he knew and never had any doubts that it 

was defendant who shot and killed Green. 
1-19-0225 

9 

¶ 21 Dolie told the grand jury that he and defendant got into the waiting red SUV. Defendant 

still had the gun with him. Defendant threw his orange shirt onto the expressway. Defendant 

asked the other occupants of the car if anyone had seen him, and Dolie replied, “you just killed 

[Green] in front of the whole neighborhood.” Defendant said “it was either him or me,” despite 

Dolie’s awareness that Green was unarmed. Defendant gave the gun to the driver of the SUV and 

Dolie heard that defendant later sold the gun. Dolie further testified to the grand jury that he was 

at Harding Park the next day when defendant arrived. Dolie heard defendant make a statement 

confirming that he killed Green. At trial, Dolie admitted he made some of the statements to 

detectives and the grand jury and he denied that he made other statements, but he testified that he 

was implicating defendant in this case “to save his [own] neck” in his own criminal case. 

¶ 22 On cross-examination, Dolie confirmed that he was arrested in an unrelated manner and 

was facing an extended prison sentence. When he was arrested, Dolie had a gun with an 

extended magazine, a dreadlock wig, and a police scanner. Dolie testified that he received the 

minimum sentence in his own case in exchange for implicating defendant. The parties stipulated 

that the assistant state’s attorney who handled Dolie’s case would testify that Dolie’s plea deal 

had nothing to do with his cooperation in this case. The parties also stipulated that a firearm 

forensics expert would testify that all of the bullets fired in Green’s murder were fired from the 

same weapon and that none of the bullets were fired from the weapon found when Dolie was 

arrested. Dolie testified to the grand jury that neither his testimony to them nor his prior recorded 

statements were the result of any threats or promises.

¶ 23 Darian Broomfield testified that he learned Dominique Green was killed on the day that it 

occurred, but that he did not know who killed Green. Broomfield denied that he was in Harding 

Park the day after the shooting and denied that he saw defendant in the park that day. Broomfield 
1-19-0225 

10 

testified that he was arrested on an unrelated matter and detectives told him that they would 

release him from custody if he made a statement implicating defendant in Green’s murder. 

Broomfield admitted that he previously made a statement implicating defendant and that he 

testified to the same before a grand jury about the matter. 

¶ 24 The State introduced Broomfield’s statement and his grand jury testimony, which were 

substantially the same. Before the grand jury, Broomfield testified that he was at Harding Park 

the day after the murder when defendant arrived in a red or maroon SUV. Defendant had a 9-

millimeter handgun with an extended magazine in his waistband and stated that “I took care of 

that bitch Snoop.” Broomfield understood the statement as an admission that defendant killed 

Green. Broomfield told the grand jury that he did not originally tell the police what he heard and 

saw in the park that day because he was afraid defendant might kill him. Broomfield testified, 

however, that he felt safer at the time the grand jury was convened because defendant was in 

custody. Broomfield stated both in his statement to detectives and in his grand jury testimony 

that his statements were voluntary and were not the result of any threats or promises. 

¶ 25 Broomfield told the grand jury he heard defendant make a statement about wanting to kill 

a rival drug dealer for whom Green reportedly worked, saying that “he is next.” Broomfield 

stated that his testimony was not the result of any threats or promises. 

¶ 26 On cross-examination, Broomfield testified that he implicated defendant because he was 

promised that his own drug charges would be dismissed. He reiterated that detectives coached 

him on what to say in his statement implicating defendant in Green’s murder and that he was 

trying to do everything in his power to help himself. A retired assistant state’s attorney testified 

that he interviewed Broomfield and that Broomfield agreed to testify before the grand jury. The 

retired ASA testified that no deals were made with Broomfield for his statement or his grand jury 
1-19-0225 

11 

testimony. The retired ASA testified that he told Broomfield that no deals would be made for his 

testimony and that Broomfield never indicated that detectives coached him or told him what to 

say. 

¶ 27 Jeffrey Gaddis testified that he was sitting on the back porch of a second-floor apartment 

at Lexington and Independence. Gaddis saw two men arguing across the street. A red SUV 

stopped near the arguing men and a man who was not wearing a shirt got out of the SUV. One of 

the men who was previously arguing ran west and the man without a shirt followed him. Gaddis 

lost sight of the men and then he heard gunshots. The shirtless man reappeared and got back into 

the SUV, which sped off. Gaddis never saw the shirtless man’s face and did not see the actual 

shooting. 

¶ 28 Detective Juan Carlos Morales testified that he and Detective Arthur Taraszkiewicz were 

assigned to investigate Green’s murder. They spoke to Dolie and he informed them that 

defendant was the killer. Morales testified that he did not coach, threaten, or promise Dolie 

anything for his statement or subsequent grand jury testimony. Morales testified that he and 

Taraszkiewicz also spoke with Broomfield who told them about defendant’s statement in the 

park in which defendant admitted to killing Green. Morales testified that he did not coach, 

threaten or promise Broomfield anything for his statement or subsequent grand jury testimony. 

¶ 29 Morales confirmed that Taraszkiewicz spoke to Daviond Dalton after the shooting. 

Morales tried to interview Dalton himself, but Dalton’s mother would not allow the interview, 

which was her right since Dalton was a minor. Morales testified that they had not concluded that 

the shooter had dreadlocks based on Dalton’s statement and were not looking for someone with a 

particular hairstyle during the investigation. 
1-19-0225 

12 

¶ 30 The State introduced three recordings of phone calls that defendant made from jail. The 

defense objected to the admission of the phone calls, but the court ruled that the statements 

reflected defendant’s awareness that Dolie implicated him and reflected defendant’s efforts to 

dissuade witnesses from talking about the case. 

¶ 31 In the first phone call, defendant instructed “tell that n*** don’t say shit. If they ever 

catch him, don’t say nothin’. What the fuck wrong with Dolie go in there tellin’ these people 

everything [that] fucking happen detail by detail. *** Thought they [were] not gonna charge him 

with a banger or something *** If it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t be in motherfucking jail right 

now.” In the second phone call a man said to defendant “I heard Dolie told on you” and 

defendant replied “that shit is on the streets already, huh.” In the third phone call, the person 

asked defendant how he got booked and defendant replied “Dolie old ass, man. *** Dolie told 

‘em on me.” When speaking about how he got arrested outside his girlfriend’s place of 

employment, defendant stated “they was waiting. Dolie told [them] where she work at and 

everything.” 

¶ 32 As a result of the State being permitted to admit the telephone recording evidence, the 

defense sought to introduce recordings that the defense claimed contained statements of 

defendant denying involvement in the killing. The recordings contained statements such as 

“Dolie told on me on a body that I ain’t even do.” The trial court ruled that the statements would 

not be admitted because they did not constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. The court 

explained that if the defense could show that the State was somehow misusing the statements, it 

would entertain the argument about admitting the statements that defendant wanted to admit. The 

defense never made any further argument about the admission of the “exculpatory” recordings.
1-19-0225 

13 

¶ 33 The parties rested on the evidence presented. Defense counsel requested that the jury be 

instructed on second-degree murder. The defense argued that the testimony about an argument 

and fight between defendant and Green and defendant’s statement that “it was either him or me” 

warranted a second-degree murder instruction. The trial court rejected the defense’s request to 

instruct the jury on second-degree murder, finding that there was not “even a scintilla” of 

evidence to warrant the issuance of the instruction.

¶ 34 During closing arguments, the State referenced the phone call recordings where 

defendant discussed how Dolie had implicated him. The State argued to the jury that defendant 

never said in those recordings that Dolie was lying or that his statements implicating defendant 

were wrong or inaccurate. However, there was a recording in which defendant claimed Dolie had 

lied on him, but that recording was not played for the jury. The State also discussed in its closing 

argument the fact that the witnesses were no longer cooperative once they were in the same room 

as defendant and implied that the witnesses were recanting their prior testimony because they 

were scared of defendant. The State further pointed out that other people mentioned during trial 

that might have been witnesses in this case were now deceased. According to defendant, the 

State insinuated to the jury that defendant might have been involved in the deaths of those 

people. 

¶ 35 The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder. The jury also found that 

defendant personally discharged a firearm during the offense.

¶ 36 Defendant filed a posttrial motion raising three issues: (1) that the trial court erred when 

it denied his motion for a continuance to secure the testimony of Daviond Dalton; (2) that the 

trial court erred when it barred him from introducing the telephone recording in which he denied 

shooting Green; and (3) that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree 
1-19-0225 

14 

murder. The trial court denied the posttrial motion and subsequently sentenced defendant to 55 

years in prison. On appeal, defendant raises the same three issues he raised in his posttrial 

motion, and he additionally argues that he was denied a fair trial because multiple jurors 

expressed specific fears about defendant and because the State played to those fears in its closing 

argument. 

¶ 37 ANALYSIS

¶ 38 Defendant raises four issues on appeal. He argues that the trial court erred: (1) when it 

denied his motion for a continuance to secure the testimony of Daviond Dalton; (2) when it 

barred him from introducing the telephone recording in which he denied shooting Green; (3) 

when it refused to instruct the jury on second-degree murder; and he argues (4) that he was 

denied a fair trial because the jury expressed that they were afraid of him and his associates and 

the State made improper comments during its closing argument that played to the jury’s fear. 

¶ 39 I. Defendant’s Motion for a Continuance

¶ 40 Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the oral motion

he made for a continuance on the eve of trial. Defendant moved for the continuance in an effort 

to secure Daviond Dalton as a defense witness. Defendant argues that Dalton’s testimony was 

important because Dalton told a detective after the shooting that the shooter had braided hair or 

dreadlocks. Defendant claims that he had short hair at the time of the shooting, but that Dariel 

Birdsong had dreadlocks and Dolie was arrested shortly after the shooting and was in possession 

of a dreadlock wig.

¶ 41 Defendant argues that he was prepared to go without Dalton as a witness because the 

State could not locate Darian Broomfield as a witness. However, defendant argues that once the 

State located Broomfield and secured him as a witness for trial, the defense strategy changed and 
1-19-0225 

15 

it needed Dalton’s testimony. The State had located their witness and answered ready that day, 

and defense counsel answered not ready. 

¶ 42 Defendant argues that the testimony of the State’s newly found witness, Darian 

Broomfield, “change[d] the tenor of the case and made [Dalton] more critical.” The trial court 

asked, “How so,” noted that Dalton had never been mentioned to the court, and stated, “I find it 

very hard to grasp the fact that somebody who was not even going to be called the last time the 

case was up has somehow been transformed into this pivotal witness that you can’t go without.” 

¶ 43 Defense counsel said she thought she had other witnesses who corroborated what Dalton 

saw, but in preparing for trial again, she noticed a discrepancy in reports and realized he was 

more critical. Counsel stated that she had tried to serve Dalton for months, but “only realized last 

week” he lived in Indiana. The defense served him there and made phone contact, and Dalton

said he was not coming to court and gave the phone to his mother, who said he did not remember 

anything and was not coming to testify. The defense knew that the ASA’s only contact with 

Dalton was prior to the last jury date: an investigator called Dalton and Dalton called the ASA’s 

office, said he did not see anything, was not coming to court, and was not going to testify. 

¶ 44 Defense counsel said her only source of information about Dalton’s observations was a 

2012 police report, and the court asked, “What’s in this police report or GPR that would 

somehow make him pivotal? Does he identify? Does he say he knows the defendant and it 

wasn’t him[?]” Defense counsel answered, “No,” and said that, per the report, Dalton “saw the 

argument between the parties,” “saw them walk away, heard shots,” “saw the man with a gun 

fleeing,” and “described that man with a gun as having braids.” The court asked three times if 

Dalton saw the shooting, defense counsel answered, “no” each time, and the court stated, “So . . . 

never in your investigation of the case did he actually see the shooting itself,” and counsel stated, 
1-19-0225 

16 

“That is correct.” Counsel agreed there was no written statement or grand jury testimony and “no 

way to prove up any impeachment to be used as substantive evidence.” 

¶ 45 The trial court denied the continuance, set pre-trial motions and jury selection for the next 

day, and told counsel, “if between now and then you have a lead and you want to push it the day 

or two to three days to get this witness in you can and you can still be looking for him throughout 

the trial.” Defense counsel noted that the court had no authority to issue a warrant for Dalton’s 

arrest since the Illinois subpoena was not valid in Indiana, and stated, “we just realized this and 

haven’t gone through the motions to do the materiality and all the things necessary.”

¶ 46 Before jury selection began the next day, counsel inquired, and the court said it would 

consider a rule to show cause for Dalton. 

“And then again I would state that as much as the case has been on the call on a 

monthly basis and both sides have kept me up to date on the progress of the case, 

etc never has this individual been mentioned to the court as a possible witness or 

possible material witness paper witness, you know, etc, etc. That hadn’t even been 

brought to me and here we are the day of trial. So again, that also factors into my

finding. So we will hold it over till tomorrow.”

¶ 47 Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a written motion for a continuance made by a 

defendant may be granted when a material witness is unavailable and the defense would be 

prejudiced by the witness’s absence from trial. 725 ILCS 5/114-4(b)(3) (West 2020). Whether 

the denial of a continuance for a witness was proper rests upon the facts and circumstances of the 

case and “particularly the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.” 

People v. Lott, 66 Ill. 2d 290, 297 (1977). The factors to be considered when reviewing the 

court’s decision are whether the defendant: (1) had shown that the testimony was material and 
1-19-0225 

17 

might have affected the jury’s verdict; (2) was diligent in his attempt to secure the witness; and 

(3) was prejudiced by the denial of the continuance. People v. McClain, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1122, 

1130 (2003). A court may also consider the history and complexity of the case, the seriousness of 

the charges, the length of the requested continuance, and judicial economy. People v. Walker, 

232 Ill. 2d 113, 125 (2009). While the interest of judicial economy is important, it is more 

important that a defendant be given a full opportunity to present the facts bearing upon the 

question of guilt or innocence. Lott, 66 Ill. 2d at 297. The trial court has discretion in deciding 

whether to grant or deny a continuance, and a reviewing court will not interfere with the trial 

court’s decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d at 127. 

¶ 48 Given the information the trial court had at the time it denied the continuance, we cannot 

say no reasonable judge would have ruled the same way as the trial court did here. Therefore, we 

find no abuse of discretion. As an offer of proof in its posttrial motion, the defense relied on the 

information from the police report without any updated information from Dalton. Dalton did not 

see the shooting and stated he did not see who shot Green. Defendant admits that Daviond 

Dalton was listed in police reports created right after the shooting occurred. However, defendant 

made no documented efforts to locate Dalton or speak to him until a few weeks before trial. The 

trial court indicated to defendant that it would delay jury selection and delay the start of trial if 

defendant could secure Dalton as a witness. The trial court indicated that it would issue a warrant 

for Dalton if the defense took the required steps to compel his appearance. After the trial began, 

the defense provided no further information about efforts to secure Dalton’s appearance. 

¶ 49 Defendant argues that Dalton became such a necessary witness once the State located 

Broomfield and secured him as a witness for trial. However, nothing from Broomfield’s 

testimony was tied to Dalton’s statement. Broomfield only testified that he saw defendant in a 
1-19-0225 

18 

park the day after the shooting and heard defendant admit to killing Green. Defense counsel did 

not explain to the trial court, and defendant does not explain here, why Broomfield’s testimony 

made Dalton’s testimony all the sudden so important. The defense knew the State intended to 

call Broomfield as a witness and knew that the State was seeking to locate him for trial. The 

argument defendant makes is that he was gambling that the State would not locate Broomfield 

and was willing to go to trial without Dalton, but that once the State located Broomfield, he 

suddenly needed Dalton to mount a defense. That failed strategy was not a justification for 

delaying the trial. 

¶ 50 At the posttrial hearing where defendant alleged the court erred in denying the 

continuance, the defense expressly elected to forego Dalton’s testimony. Defendant argued that 

the length of the continuance would not have been unduly long because it would not have taken 

that long for counsel to file the paperwork in Indiana and secure Dalton’s presence for trial. The 

offer of proof from defendant about how Dalton could have helped the defense demonstrated that 

Dalton did not see the shooting. Dalton never told police that he saw the person that fired the 

gunshots. Detective Morales confirmed that Dalton told police he saw someone with braids with 

a gun after he heard gunshots, but Morales testified that the detectives were not looking for 

someone with a particular hairstyle after the shooting. Instead, Morales testified that he spoke to 

Green’s family and learned he should speak to Dolie. After officers spoke to Dolie and otherwise 

investigated the case, they reached the conclusion that defendant was the shooter.

¶ 51 Based on the totality of the evidence offered in the case, even if Dalton testified 

consistent with his statement to police, it is not reasonably likely that his testimony would have 

affected the outcome of the case, therefore his testimony is not material. The pertinent inquiry 

with respect to materiality of an uncalled witness is not whether the evidence might have helped 
1-19-0225 

19 

the defense but whether it is reasonably likely that the evidence would have affected the outcome 

of the case. People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill. 2d 58, 89 (1998). Again, Dalton told detectives that he 

did not see the shooting take place and did not see who fired the shots that killed Green. On the 

other hand, there was substantive evidence admitted at trial that Dolie was with defendant on the 

day of the shooting and had known defendant for 10 years. Dolie watched defendant shoot Green 

in the face and then stand over him and shoot him several more times. Dolie got into an SUV 

with defendant after the shooting and heard defendant make inculpatory statements. Broomfield 

similarly heard defendant admit to killing Green. Defendant has not demonstrated any reasonable 

likelihood that the outcome of the case might have been different if his continuance would have 

been granted and Dalton gave his proffered testimony. We find no abuse of discretion. 

¶ 52 II. Defendant’s Phone Calls from Jail

¶ 53 Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited him from 

introducing a recording of a phone call he made from jail. In the recording at issue, defendant 

seemingly denied being the shooter; implied that Dolie was lying and that defendant was not 

responsible for the killing. Defendant contends that the trial court should have allowed him to 

introduce that recording after the court allowed the State to introduce three recordings that 

included damaging statements. Defendant argues that the court’s error was particularly 

prejudicial once the State highlighted to the jury during its closing argument that defendant did 

not deny the accuracy of Dolie implicating him in the recordings that were introduced at trial.

Defendant’s argument presents two different but interrelated questions: did the trial court err at 

the time it denied defendant’s request to introduce the subject recording; and did the State’s 

discussion of defendant’s lack of a denial during the closing argument deny him a fair trial.
1-19-0225 

20 

¶ 54 Defendant acknowledges that the recording in which he seemingly denied killing Green

constitutes inadmissible hearsay, but he argues that it should have been introduced under the 

doctrine of curative admissibility. Under the doctrine of curative admissibility, a party is allowed 

to present otherwise inadmissible evidence if it contradicts or explains prejudicial evidence 

presented by the other party. People v. Manning, 182 Ill. 2d 193, 216 (1998); People v. Hinthorn, 

2019 IL App (4th) 160818, ¶ 71. We review a trial court’s decision to prohibit the introduction of 

putatively curable evidence for an abuse of discretion. Manning, 182 Ill. 2d at 211.

¶ 55 Defendant did not raise the issue of curative admissibility in the trial court. Defendant did 

not mention curative admissibility with his request for admission of the recordings nor did he 

mention it in his posttrial motion discussing the issue. See People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 470 

(2005) (“a defendant must both specifically object at trial and raise the specific issue again in 

a posttrial motion to preserve any alleged error for review.”). Defendant concedes that he did not

specifically raise curative admissibility, but he claims that his argument that the recordings 

should have been admitted under the completeness doctrine was sufficient to preserve the issue 

for review.

¶ 56 The completeness doctrine is different from the curative admissibility doctrine. The 

completeness doctrine allows a party to introduce a full statement when the opposing party seeks 

to introduce a portion of the statement. People v. Viramontes, 2021 IL App (1st) 190665, ¶ 51. 

The curative admissibility doctrine allows a party to introduce separate explanatory evidence 

when other evidence might lead to a misleading or unwarranted conclusion. Id. These two 

doctrines are distinct legal principles that require distinct, specific objections. See id. at ¶ 56; 

People v. Furby, 138 Ill. 2d 434, 449 (1990); People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564 (2007) 

(issues not raised at trial or in a posttrial motion are not preserved for review and are forfeited).
1-19-0225 

21 

Objections at trial on specific grounds waive all other grounds of objection. People v. Barrios, 

114 Ill. 2d 265, 275 (1986). Recognizing that he may have forfeited the issue for review, 

defendant argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the proper 

objection. 

¶ 57 The United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective 

assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. Amend. VI (West 2020). To be entitled to relief on a claim 

of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his counsel’s representation fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he suffered prejudice as a 

result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (1st) 

131503, ¶ 27. The failure to satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test precludes a finding 

of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (2000). We analyze 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by considering the entire record. People v. 

Hommerson, 399 Ill. App. 3d 405, 415 (2010).

¶ 58 Regardless of whether the error is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, plain error,1 or 

under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that defendant is not entitled to relief 

on appeal for the trial court’s decision not to admit the subject recording. The State introduced 

three recordings in which defendant discussed a desire to prevent witnesses from sharing 

information with investigators. In the first phone call, defendant discussed Dolie and instructed, 

“tell that n*** don’t say shit. If they ever catch him, don’t say nothin’. What the fuck wrong with 

Dolie go in there tellin’ these people everything [that] fucking happen detail by detail. *** 

Thought they [were] not gonna charge him with a banger or something *** If it weren’t for him, 

I wouldn’t be in motherfucking jail right now.” In the second phone call a man said to defendant 

1 Defendant does not argue on appeal that we should reach this error under the plain error 

doctrine. 
1-19-0225 

22 

“I heard Dolie told on you” and defendant replied, “that shit is on the streets already, huh.” In the 

third phone call, the person asked defendant how he got booked and defendant replied “Dolie old 

ass, man. *** Dolie told ‘em on me.” When speaking in that third phone call about how he got 

arrested outside his girlfriend’s place of employment, defendant stated “they was waiting. Dolie 

told [them] where she work at and everything.” Defendant does not argue that these recordings 

were improperly admitted. Instead, defendant argues that it was error to not allow him to 

introduce a separate recording in which he claimed that he did not kill the person that Dolie had 

told investigators that he killed.

¶ 59 The recordings that the State was allowed to introduce were not admitted for the purpose 

of showing that defendant had never proclaimed his innocence. The recordings were admitted to

show defendant’s consciousness of guilt—that he did not want people talking to investigators 

because, inferentially, he did not want the truth to be told. The recordings also provided an 

explanation as to why the witnesses testified convincingly that defendant was the killer when 

they testified before the grand jury, but then recanted those statements when testifying at trial.

The recording defendant sought to admit did not contradict or explain the evidence introduced by 

the State. See Manning, 182 Ill. 2d at 216. Further, the recordings introduced by the State did not 

create an unwarranted prejudicial inference against defendant. The recording that defendant 

argues should have been admitted was not necessary to understand the recordings admitted by 

the State or to fairly evaluate the veracity of the evidence. 

¶ 60 The recording defendant sought to admit is a self-serving hearsay statement that the trial 

court was within its discretion to prohibit from introduction. Moreover, when the trial court 

denied defendant’s request to admit the fourth recording, it explained that if the defense could 

show that the State was somehow misusing the other statements, it would entertain argument 
1-19-0225 

23 

about admitting the statements that defendant wanted to admit. Defendant never renewed his 

request to admit the fourth recording based on anything that transpired at trial. When all the 

recordings are viewed against one another, and under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot 

say that the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited defendant from introducing the 

fourth recording. The outcome of the trial would not have been different had the jury heard the 

recording that defendant claims should have been admitted.

¶ 61 Defendant’s argument really relies on what the State said about the recordings during 

closing argument more so than it does on the correctness of the trial court’s evidentiary ruling on 

the recordings themselves. Defendant does not argue that the State exceeded the latitude it is 

provided in making a closing argument (People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 347 (2007)) when it 

commented about the recordings or that the prosecution otherwise engaged in prosecutorial

misconduct with regard to the recordings. Defendant’s argument both here and in the trial court 

is that it was the trial court’s evidentiary ruling itself that entitles him to relief. We reject that 

contention. Defendant did not separately move to introduce the fourth recording upon the 

prosecutor making certain statements in his closing argument nor did he ask the trial court to 

revisit its ruling in light of the closing argument. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or 

otherwise commit reversible error when making the challenged evidentiary ruling. 

¶ 62 III. Refusal to Give Second-Degree Murder Instruction

¶ 63 Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the 

jury on second-degree murder. Defendant requested an instruction on second-degree murder, 

arguing that there was evidence presented that would permit the jury to find that he acted under

an unreasonable belief of the need for self-defense. The trial court rejected defendant’s request, 
1-19-0225 

24 

finding that there was insufficient evidence to support instructing the jury on second-degree 

murder. 

¶ 64 A defendant is entitled to have the jury fully and properly instructed on the law, including 

the law applicable to the defendant’s theory of the case. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 

1970 art. I, §§ 2, 8; People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 126, 132 (1997). To warrant a jury instruction on 

a defense theory, there only needs to be some evidence, however slight, to support a jury finding 

under that theory. People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 43. When the trial court, after 

reviewing all the evidence, determines that there is insufficient evidence to justify the giving of a

particular jury instruction, the proper standard of review of that decision is abuse of discretion.

People v. McDonald, 2016 IL 118882, ¶ 42. 

¶ 65 A person commits second-degree murder based on imperfect self-defense when he 

commits first-degree murder and, at the time of the killing, unreasonably believes his use of 

force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. People v. Reid, 179 

Ill. 2d 297, 308 (1997). Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support his 

request for a second-degree murder instruction such that the trial court abused its discretion by 

rejecting his request for the instruction. Defendant points to the evidence that he and Green had a 

dispute over territory for selling drugs. Defendant points out that there was evidence that he and 

Green argued, got into a physical altercation, and that the shooting occurred shortly thereafter. 

Defendant points out that the jury heard that he made a statement after the shooting that “it was 

either him or me.” And defendant points out that the jury heard evidence that Green was a gang 

enforcer who murdered people. Defendant maintains that this evidence was sufficient to meet the 

threshold for the slight evidentiary burden to support his request for a second-degree murder 

instruction. 
1-19-0225 

25 

¶ 66 We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to reject defendant’s request 

for an instruction on second-degree murder. The evidence of a physical altercation between 

defendant and Green was supplemented with evidence that defendant left the scene, put his shirt 

over his face, returned with a weapon, and approached Green from behind. The evidence showed 

that Green did not have a weapon. When Green turned around, defendant brandished a weapon 

and pointed the weapon at Green’s face. See People v. Cruz, 2021 IL App (1st) 190132, ¶ 56 

(brandishing a weapon can be considered an act of initial aggression). Green asked defendant if 

he was going to kill him, and Green put his arms up over his face to try to protect himself. The 

evidence showed that defendant then shot Green in the head and then shot him several more 

times all about his body. There was no evidence that defendant was under a threat of imminent 

death or great bodily harm. To the contrary, the evidence showed that when defendant left the 

scene, Green did not pursue him. See People v. Huddleston, 176 Ill. App. 3d 18, 34 (1988) 

(shooter not protected by self-defense when he pursues someone following a fight who has since

abandoned the quarrel). When defendant returned, Green had his back to defendant. Defendant 

was the aggressor in the immediate confrontation that led to Green’s death.

¶ 67 There was no evidence that defendant was under threat of imminent death or great bodily 

harm when he killed Green. Although defendant self-servingly stated that “it was either him or 

me,” there was no evidence that defendant’s statement had any basis in fact. Green was unarmed 

and defendant approached him from behind, got his attention, and then shot him. At trial, the 

defense focused primarily on the issue of identification and on the fact that the witnesses 

recanted their prior testimony. Of course, a defendant may be entitled to a second-degree murder 

instruction as an alternative theory and on the State’s evidence alone (People v. Jones, 175 Ill. 2d 

126, 132 (1997)), but we point out the defense’s focus at trial only to highlight the overall lack of 
1-19-0225 

26 

evidence to support a second-degree murder instruction. The defense never asked the witnesses 

about any circumstances that would have provided a basis for instructing the jury on self-defense 

or second-degree murder. The defense was focused on attempting to show that defendant was not 

the shooter.

¶ 68 The evidence showed that defendant pursued Green after the initial conflict ended, 

acquired a gun, concealed his identity, ambushed Green from behind, shot him ten times after he 

raised his empty hands, and then fled to a getaway vehicle. The evidence was wholly 

inconsistent with self-defense or a belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent 

death or great bodily harm to defendant. See People v. Lewis, 2015 IL App (1st) 122411, ¶¶ 66-

67, 70. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected defendant’s request for 

instructing the jury on second-degree murder. 

¶ 69 IV. The Jury’s Fear of the Defendant

¶ 70 Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial because multiple jurors expressed fear of 

defendant and his associates. Defendant contends that, after being aware of the jury’s fear, the 

State played to its fears by arguing that the witnesses too were afraid of defendant, and by

discussing how two of the potential witnesses died before trial. Defendant points out that the 

State provided no evidence that he had anything to do with the witnesses’ deaths, but that the 

State speculated about his involvement to unfairly cast him in a negative light. Defendant argues 

that the State’s exploitation of the jurors’ fear during its closing argument denied him a fair trial. 

¶ 71 Defendant acknowledges that he did not object to these portions of the State’s closing 

argument at trial and did not raise the issue or the particular comments in a posttrial motion.

Defendant forfeited this claim for appeal because he failed to object during trial or raise the 

issues in a posttrial motion. See Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 564 (issues not raised at trial or in a 
1-19-0225 

27 

posttrial motion are not preserved for review and are forfeited). Defendant, however, asks us to 

reach the issue under plain error review.

¶ 72 Under plain error review, we will grant relief to a defendant on otherwise-forfeited issues 

in either of two circumstances: (1) if the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone 

threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant or (2) if the error is so serious that it 

affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, 

regardless of the closeness of the evidence. People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178–79 (2005).

The plain error doctrine is not a general savings clause preserving all errors affecting substantial 

rights whether or not they have been brought to the attention of the trial court. People v. Gray, 

215 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 1050 (1991). Rather, it is a narrow and limited exception to the general 

waiver rule and its purpose is to protect the rights of the defendant and the integrity and 

reputation of the judicial process. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 177. Defendant argues that the evidence 

was closely balanced and that the error threatened to tip the scales against him.

¶ 73 Defendant points to the several instances in which the jurors’ fears were an issue at trial. 

Before the trial began, one of the jurors was having a panic attack and indicated to the court that 

he would not be able to sit as a juror on the case because of the nature of the case, the gang 

involvement, and because the defendant now knew the juror’s name. The juror recounted that 

other people in the jury room had expressed that they wished they were only referred to as a 

number instead of by name, because now the defendant would know who they are. Another juror 

indicated that she recognized someone in the gallery on the first day of trial. The juror was 

brought into chambers and indicated that she was “a little scared” by the idea that the jury could 

convict the defendant and that the person she knew in the gallery could recognize her. The 
1-19-0225 

28 

courtroom deputy also reported that jurors expressed that they were uneasy about their names 

being used in open court because anyone could just Google their names.

¶ 74 Defendant’s argument is that, with all these indications of the jury’s fear as a backdrop, 

he was denied a fair trial when the State played to these fears during its closing argument.

Prosecutors are given wide latitude in closing arguments. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d at 347. The State 

may comment on the evidence and any fair, reasonable inferences it yields. People v. Johnson, 

2015 IL App (1st) 123249, ¶ 38. Rather than focus on selected remarks or phrases, a reviewing 

court must consider the prosecutor’s comments in the context in which they were made and the 

overall context of the closing arguments made by both parties. People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 

441 (2010). In reviewing comments made at closing arguments, we ask whether the comments 

engender substantial prejudice against a defendant such that it is impossible to say whether a 

verdict of guilt resulted from them. People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 123 (2007). 

¶ 75 In this case, both of the jurors that expressed specific fears were excused long before the 

comments made by prosecutors during closing arguments. The first juror, who was excused 

before the trial started, indicated that he did not share his fears about the gang-related nature of 

the case with anyone else on the jury. The second juror confirmed that the jury did not hear 

anything about why the first juror was excused and stated that he just “kind of walked out. I 

don’t know what happened to him.” The second juror was nervous about being recognized by a 

former coworker in the courtroom gallery. The trial judge asked the juror if anyone in the jury 

room was saying anything to make her think those things and the juror responded in the negative 

and stated that “this is me putting scenarios in my head.” The second juror told the court that she 

did not say anything to the other jurors about her concerns or what was going on with her, and 

the trial court excused this juror with agreement from both the State and the defense after one 
1-19-0225 

29 

day of trial. A couple other jurors asked the courtroom deputy about their names being used in 

open court, but there is no indication that the jurors’ concerns persisted beyond those simple 

inquiries and there is no indication that those jurors could not be fair adjudicators of the facts

based on their questions. Defendant did not object to continuing with the jury as constructed after 

the court dealt with the individual jurors’ concerns and excused the subject jurors.

¶ 76 In its closing argument, the State discussed the fact that the witnesses were no longer 

cooperative once they were in the same room as defendant and implied that they were recanting 

their prior testimony because they were scared of defendant. This line of comment, however, was 

fair based on the evidence and on the circumstances of the witnesses’ testimony. Dolie and 

Broomfield in particular gave compelling statements of defendant’s guilt to investigators and to a 

grand jury. After Dolie and Broomfield provided those statements, there were phone call 

recordings in which defendant was instructing from jail that cooperating witnesses be told not to 

say anything to investigators, to not repeat their assertions of his guilt. For example, defendant 

stated about Dolie, “tell that n*** don’t say shit. If they ever catch him, don’t say nothin’. What 

the fuck wrong with Dolie go in there tellin’ these people everything [that] fucking happen detail 

by detail.” Broomfield testified to the grand jury that he did not originally cooperate with 

investigators because he was scared that defendant might kill him, but that he felt better about 

testifying before the grand jury since defendant was incarcerated at that time. Dolie told 

detectives when he was arrested with a gun that he had the gun because he feared retaliation 

stemming from the events leading to this case. When the trial began and the witnesses were 

seated in front of defendant, the witnesses told a completely different story to the jury than they 

told to investigators and the grand jury. The State’s comments were based on the evidence and 
1-19-0225 

30 

reasonable inferences therefrom and did not result in unfair prejudice against defendant. See 

People v. Green, 2017 IL App (1st) 152513, ¶¶ 85-90. 

¶ 77 The State also pointed out that two other people mentioned during trial who might have 

been present at the shooting and seen it occur were now deceased. Defendant argues that the 

State improperly insinuated that the jury should ponder whether defendant might have been 

involved in the deaths of those people without providing evidence. However, the defense’s trial 

strategy was to argue that the detectives had tunnel vision in this case, and the defense pointed 

out that there were eyewitnesses to the shooting who were not called to testify. The defense was 

insinuating that the State was withholding information from the jury. Defendant invited some 

discussion of this issue. People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 225 (2004). The State was entitled to 

point out the reason that the witnesses were not present at trial. 

¶ 78 The prosecutor discussed one of the phone calls defendant made from jail along with the 

death of one of the witnesses and stated, “that is defendant trying to make sure that the witnesses 

against him kept quiet.” The statement, in context, can be fairly interpreted to be a comment that 

the overall content of the phone call was defendant trying to keep the witnesses quiet, rather than 

that the witness’s death was defendant trying to keep the witness quiet. The comment cannot be 

viewed in isolation. See Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d at 441. Of course, it is improper for the State to 

argue assumptions or facts not based upon evidence or make comments with the sole effect of 

inflaming the passion or arousing the prejudice of the jury against the defendant. People v. Smith, 

141 Ill. 2d 40, 60 (1990). However, when looking at the statements within the entire context of 

the closing argument and the circumstances of the case, we cannot say the State’s comments 

about the witnesses’ deaths unfairly prejudiced defendant or denied him a fair trial such that he is 

entitled to relief on appeal under plain error review.
1-19-0225 

31 

¶ 79 CONCLUSION

¶ 80 Accordingly, we affirm. 

¶ 81 Affirmed.