1 Bo and was tried an d convi cted o f va r io us cr imes in c o nne ct io n w it h t he sa me i n ci den t, b ut, No. 2-- 05--0366 Fil ed: 7-17-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f La ke Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) No. 03-- CF--277 v. ) ) PAUL D. HOERER, ) Ho no r ab le ) James K. Boo ras, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judg e, Pres i di ng.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEO' MA

LL EY de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Pau l D. H oere r, a ppe als f rom hi s c onv i cti on af ter a j ury tria l of u nl awf ul del i very of a controlled s

ubstance (720 ILC S 570/40 1(f) (Wes t 2002)) and in volun tary m ansl aughter (720 ILCS 5/ 9- -3 (a ) ( Wes t 20 02 )) . H e c o nt end s t hat his c o uns el w as ineff ectiv e f or st ipulat ing t o t he ad m i ss i on of t est imony

that defenda

nt had en tered into plea

nego t iatio ns wit h t he St at e and t hat t he trial cou rt c om m i tted re v er si b l e error i n al l owi n g th e S tate t o elic it testim

ony regardi

ng a sex ual
as sa ul t al l eg edl y com m i tted b y a c ode f en da nt. For the reaso ns that follow, we reverse defend ant 's
co nvic t io n a nd r ema nd t he ca us e fo ra n ew t r ial. De fendant was cha

rged in connection with a

n i nci dent in whi ch h e and sev eral f rien ds , including codef

endan t Josh ua Boa nd, a llegedly ing es t ed met ha do ne Bo an d h ad o bt ain ed fr o m a metha do ne clin

ic he was attendin g. 1 The evi

dence i ndicated that a wo ma

n wh o was among the groupNo. 2-- 05--0366

on appe al , hi s c onv

i cti ons were revers ed

an d h i s c as e re man de d f orretrial . See Peo ple v. Bo and , 362 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 6 (200 5). -2- of fr ien ds fell u nc o nsc io us an d e ve nt ua lly die d a s a r es ult of h er meth adon e i n ge sti on an d th at, if the fri endshad sought m

edi cal assi stance on the woman 's b ehal f on th e n i gh t i n q ue sti on, i ns tead of wait ingunt il the next da y, she might have s ur vived. Afte r he ar ing t he evide nce a nd de liberat ing, t he j ury convi cted defen dant of i nvol untary m ansl aughter and un la wful deliv ery of a controlled

substanc e. Defend ant was sent ence d t o t wo co ncur re nt fi ve-y ear terms of i

mprisonm ent, and, followi

ng the trial
cour t's denial

of hi s post trial m

ot ion, he tim

ely appeals. On appeal , defen

dant fi rst clai ms that his counsel was i nef fecti ve f o r st ipulat ing t o t he ad m i ss i on of defendan

t's test im ony, giv en when h e test if ied as a pr os ecu t ion wit ness in Bo and's case, that he had ent er ed int o p lea neg ot iatio ns wit h t he St at e. As re levant her e, t hat t est imony rea d t o t he jury include d t he fo llowing p assa ges fro m Boa nd's d efense co unse l's cro ss- examinat ion:

"Q. Mr. Hoerer, *** when you testif ie d on direct exa

mi nation, y ou have testif

ie d that y ou ha ve no de al wi th the prosec uti on, i s tha

t correct, si

r? A . Th at' s c orre ct. Q. In f act, you in

dic ated that n o prom

i se s h av e b een made i n an y wa y to you, cor

re ct? A. That's true. Q. An d as I understand the wordi ng y ou used at some poin

t was the re i s n o hi nt of a dea l as f ar as you' recon cerned , i s th

at c orre ct? A . Y es , that' s c orre ct. Q. Are yo u t elling

t his jury, Mr. Ho erer, t hat the so le reason y ou ar e here is b ecause y ou b el i eve i t's the righ t thi ng to do?No. 2-- 05--0366

-3- A . Ye s, te l l i

ng the truth i s th e ri gh t thi ng to do. Q. You ar e t elling

the jury , I take it, t hat y

ou are here becaus e of a sen se of j ustice that y ou f eel [the v i cti m] i s en titl ed to, i s tha

t correct, si

r? A . Ye s, I do. * * * Q. Mr
. Ho er er , as yo u s it he r e, isn' t it a fac t t hat y ou hold ou t so me hop e t hat by t est ify ingin th i s c as e; b y

wai v i n g y our ri gh t to re main sil

ent ; by coming in her e and t est ify ing f ort he pr o se cu t io n, yo u h o ld out the hope that y

ou can i nf l uen ce them i n y ou're your [ sic ]
ca se s [ tha t] are g oi ng to be pros ecute d, y

esor no? A . Te l l i n g th e tr uth h ere h el psme s l ee

p a t ni gh t. * * * Q. Mr. Hoerer, you sai

d that it is not o n y our mi nd nor has

it entered y

our mi nd that y our testi mony here coul d i n s ome f ash i on b enef i t you, i s tha t correct, si

r? A. Wel l, I would h

ope that by telli

ng the truth *** in some w ay, it mighthel p my case. * * * Q. On Ma y the 9th of 200 3, M r. H oere r, y oumet w ith r epr ese nt at ives o f the St at e's Attorne y's Of f i ce f oll owi ng y our i ndi ctmen t on som e of thes e ch arges , i s tha

t correct, si

r? A. I bel ie ve so. I am n

ot sure of the date. Q. Mr
. St r ick lan d[ , t he pr o se cu t o rin Boand's c ase,] was one of those presen t at t hat particul ar ti me, i s tha t correct, si

r? A. Yes.No. 2-- 05--0366

-4- Q. And thi s was about a year after t he even ts i nwhi ch

[th e vi ctim ] died, is that correct, s i r? A. Yes. Q. You wererepr es en

ted b y a l aw yer at th at ti me, cor re ct? A. Yes. Q. And t he pu r

po se - - t ha t wa s a mee t ing t ha t wa s he ld in t his building here, i sn't t hat ri ght, s i r? A. Yes, it was. Q. That woul

d h av e b een , I ta

ke i t, i n th e S tate ' s A

ttorn ey ' s O f f i ce , c orre ct? A. Yes. Q. And t he pu rp os e o f tha t meet ing, s ir, w as t o s ee if so me type of p lea ag re ement
cou l d b e reach

ed b etw een you a n d th e S tate , i sn

' t th at c orre ct? A. Yes. Q. You were

ex pl ori ng the pos si bi l i ty of se ei ng i f youcoul d eng ag e i

n s ome k i nd of
an agreem ent that would resul

t in the di sposition of the cases

that you had agai

nst y ou, is that correct, s i r? A. Yes, I was. Q. You h ad your l aw yer wi th you a t th at ti me, i sn ' t th at c orre ct? A. Yes, I did. Q. A nd y ou were told a t that ti me tha t bef ore any subject or any type of a gr eement
cou l d b e reach

ed , the S tate

wou l d l i ke to s pe ak wi th you, i sn ' t th at c orre ct? A. Yes.No. 2-- 05--0366

-5- * * * Q. A nd you w ere tol d a t tha t ti me, were n' t you, th at w he the r or n ot an ag r ee men t will b e reach ed wou l d dep en d on th e i n f orm ati on th at y ou prov i de d. T h at' s a f act, i sn ' t i t? A. Yes. * * * Q. You had the ben

efi t at that t im

e *** of ha vi ng som e i de a of what th i s i nv es ti ga ti on i n v ol v ed , c orre ct? A. Yes. Q. You were aware a t t hat tim e that there were availa

ble to you and y

our at to rney various in vestigative

report s that were prepared in conj unction w

ith thes e even

ts, isn't that correct, s i r? A. Ye s, we ha d t he di sc o ve ry. Q. And as pa r t o f t ha t dis co ve ry pr o ce ss , I t ak e it yo u, at so me point, reviewed, as bestyou could, the

va ri ous rep orts that we

re in exi stence at that tim

e, i sn't tha t correct, si

r? A. Y es, I l

ooked them

over. Q. I take it you had a

n opport uni

ty to discuss

the content of those report s wi th your at t o rne y? A. Yes. * * * Q. A n d i t wa s af ter you h ad re v i ew ed th e rep orts

an d a f ter y ouhad d iscuss ed it , t hat 's wh en you go i nto the S tate's

Attorne y's Of f i ce, isn't tha

t correct, si

r? A. Yes.No. 2-- 05--0366

-6- Q. That's wh

en y ou say: L ook. I would l

ike to see if I co uld r eac h a plea agr eement wi th y ou wi th res pect to m y cas es, is tha

t correct, si

r? A. Y es." Defend ant arg

ue s th at h i s c oun se l wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or s ti pul ati ng to t he admi ssi o n o f his t est imony (from B oand's cas e) t hat he en tered into plea n

egotiation di scussi

ons wi th the Stat e, because , un de rSu pr eme Court Rul e 402(f) (177 Ill. 2d R. 402(f )), such st at eme nt s a r e in ad miss ible agains t a cri m i n al de f en da n t. To det er mine whet her a de fendant was deni ed the ef fecti ve ass is tance of co uns el, we ap ply t he t wo - pr o ng ed t es t de ve lo pe d b y t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Co ur t in St rick land v. W ashi ng ton , 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct . 2 052 (1 984 ), and a do pt ed by
our sup re me co ur t in People v . Alb anese , 1 04 I ll. 2d 5 04, 526 (1 984 ). A defend ant alleging ineffect ivea ssist anc e o f co un se l will p r ev ail o nly wh er e h e s ho ws : ( 1) co un se l's p er fo rman ce fell be l owan o bject ive st anda rd of r eas ona bleness; a nd (2 ) there is a

re as on ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty th at, bu t f or
co unse l'ser r o r s, t he r es ult of the proce edi ng woul d ha

ve be en di f f eren t. St rick land , 466 U.S. at 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693 , 10 4 S. Ct . at 206 4; Al banese , 104 Ill . 2d at 525. To estab l i sh

de f i ci en t perf orm an ce un der the f i rs t St rick land

pr o ng , t he de fen da nt mu s t
over co me the strong presumpti on that counsel' s action or i nacti on was the resul

t o f s ound t r ia l st r at eg y. Pe o ple v. Pe

rry , 224 Ill . 2d 312, 341-42 (2007). "This me ans the def

endan t must show that
co unse l'serrors were so ser ious , a nd his pe rfo rmance so deficient , t hat he did no t funct ion as t he 'c o un se l' guaranteed by

the sixth am

endm ent." Perry

, 2 24 I ll. 2d a t 342 . D efenda nt ar gu es t ha t his
co unse l'sper for mance fell below an o bject ivestandard of reasonable ness because counsel stipul ated to h av i n g th e a b ov e- quoted

testi mon y re ad to th e j ur y de sp i te i ts prohi bi tion und er Ru l e 402 (f ). Ru le 402(f) pro vides as foll

ows:No. 2-- 05--0366

-7-

"If a pl ea di scus si on doe s n ot res ul t i n a plea of gui l ty , or if a p l ea of gui l ty i s n ot ac ce pte d or is wit hdr aw n, o r if ju dg ment o n a p lea o f g ui l ty i s re versed on di rect or coll

ateral revi

ew, nei ther the ple a dis cu ss io n no ran y re su lt ing ag r ee men t , ple a, o rjud gme nt sha ll be a dmis sible agai nst the de f

endan t in an y cri m i na l procee di ng." 177 Il

l . 2d R. 4 02(f

). The supreme court 's purpose in pro mulgat ing Rule 4 02( f) wa s "t o e nco ur age t he negotiated di sp osi ti on of cri mi nal cases b y e li mi natin g the risk that juri es will

hear statemen

ts or admis si ons m

ade by defendan ts dur in g plea negotiations." Peo ple v. Hart , 214 Ill. 2d 490 , 5 02 ( 200 5) . T he St at e's pri mary chal le nget o d efenda nt 's ar gument is its a sser t ion t hat t he testim ony h ere was not plea-rel

ated under t he t est ar t iculat ed in Hart and People v . Friedm

an , 79 Ill . 2d 3 4 1 (1 980 ), a nd thu s d i d n ot vi ola te Rul e 402 (f ). The t est t he St at e r efer enc es requ ires that cour ts conside

r, "fi rst, whether the accused exh ibited a s ub jec t ive ex pe ct at io n t o ne go t iat e a ple a, and, se cond, whether that expectation was
r ea so na ble under the t ot ali ty of the objective ci

rcumstances." Hart , 21 4 I ll. 2 d a t 50 3, cit in g Fri edm an , 79 Ill . 2d at 351. T he Stat e urges t hat, here, under the first p ron g of th e a b ov e te st, defend ant 's single re fere nce t o a plea ne go t iatio n "is no t eno ugh t o demo nst ra t e t hat defend ant 'ex hi bi ted a su bj ecti ve ex pectati on to ne gotia

te a pl ea.' " Under the se cond prong, the Stat e urges that "t he 'ob j ec ti ve ci rcu m sta nc es ' s how that no ple a bargai

n was en tered into by

the parties" an

d that def endan t "was testi f y i ng i nde pen den tly [, wi thout an y] prom i ses or exp ectations." The Stat e's argum

ent is mi sdi rected. The t wo -p ro ng t est quo t ed a bove is used "t o d et er mine whether a p ar t icu lar st at eme nt is p le a rela t ed." Hart , 21 4 Il

l . 2d at 5 03. Here, the

com pl ai ne d-of testim ony di d not relay

a "particul

ar statement" purportedly related to plea

ne go t iat io ns. Ra t he r , it relay ed t he fact t hat plea ne go t iatio ns t oo k plac e. In Hart and Friedman , th e s ta temen ts wereNo. 2-- 05--0366

-8-

ina dmis sible bec au se t he y indicat ed t he de fendant 's de sire t o e nt er plea ne go t iatio ns. H er e, t he t est imony ad mit t ed ga ve t he jur y pr eju dic ial inform at io n e ve n mo r e d ire ct ly. R at he rt ha n simp ly
re laying a s t at eme nt t hat indic at ed de fe n da nt 's d es ire t o ne go t iat e, de fen da nt 's t es t imo ny d ire ct ly stated that he i

n f act en tered i nto plea n egoti ati ons. The two -pro nged test the Stat e seeks to in voke is in apposite. Furth er, we re j ect th e S tate ' s a

rgum en ts th at th e te sti mon y di d n ot i n di ca te t hat defend ant had
a subj ective expectation to enter in to a pl ea ne gotiati on and that the expectation was reasonab le under t he t o t alit y o f t he cir cu mst an ce s. T he t es t imo ny i ndi cated th at def en da n t an d h i s l aw yer met wi th prosec utors to dis cuss a pl

ea ar ra n gemen t. T his t es t imo ny sh o ws no t o nly a s ub jec t ive an d r ea so na ble bel ie f that ple a n eg oti ati on s w ere p oss i

b l e, b ut al so t

h at def en da n t an d th e S tate actual l y en tered i n to ple a nego t iatio ns. T he St at e's p rimary ar gument , t hat defend ant 's t est imony cann ot have been

ple arelated because there was no plea

ag r ee men t , o ve r lo o ks t he po int t ha t , by it s p lain la ng ua ge , Ru le 40 2( f) excl

udes ev i de nc e of pl ea di sc us sio ns "[ i] f apl ea di sc us sio n d o es no t r es ul t in a pl ea o f g ui lt y" (177 Ill . 2dR. 402 (f

)). Li ke wi se , th e Sta

te' s c onte nti on, rai se d a t oral arg um en t, th at there

coul d n ot have been a pl ea negotiation h

ere becaus e there is

no in dic ation that

t he St at e eve r mad e de fendant
an of f er, m i ss esthe poi nt. A ne gotiati on th at doesnot l

ead to an of fer does n

ot cease to be a negotiation. Def

endan t's testim ony c le arly

in dic ates that a negotiation too k pla ce. Based on the above discussi

on, we c onclud e t hat t he ad mission o f defend ant 's t est imony
re gar ding his a t t emp t ed ple a a gr ee ment vio lat ed Ru le 4 02 (f) . I n it s br ief, th e S tate did not offer any
r ea so na ble ex

pl an ati on f or cou ns el 's sti pul ati on to allow thi s evi

dence. A t o ral argu men t, the S tate urgedt hat co unse l's st ipulat ing t o a llow t he t est imony coul d have b een p art of

a strategy to show t hatNo. 2-- 05--0366

2 The Sta te does not argue, and we therefore do not co nsi der, that defens e co unse l mi ght have concl uded that, upo n learni

ng that defend ant t est ifi

ed a gainst a co defend ant at t he co defend ant 's t r ial, t he jury wo uld have assu med t hat defend ant had br ok er ed a dea l with t he pr os ecu t ion, and, theref ore, t he ad miss io n o f his t es t imo ny t ha t he did n ot get a dea l an d w as testi f y i n g ou t of du ty to th e tr uth
wo uld ha ve ac t ua lly de cr ea se d p r eju dic e a ga inst him. -9- defend ant wa s u

ps tan di n g a n d w an ted to be truthful

with i nve stigators about this

in ci dent. We rej ect th e S tate ' s a

rgum en t. Ou rsu pr eme court has n

ot ed that t he prej udic ia

l e ff ect of all owing the type of testi

mony at is sue he r e is so "d ev as t at ing " t ha t it willbe consi dered pr ejudicial eve n in the fa ce o f ove rw helming evi dence agai nst a def endan t. Fri edm an , 79 Il l . 2d at 35 3. Gi

ve n th e u nu sual l y pre j udi ci al na ture of t his testi m on y , w e c an n ot ag re e wi th t he St at e t hat st ipulat ingto its adm is si on in order t o introduce de fe nd an t 's as se r t io n t ha t he wa s b ein g t rut hfu l co ul d b e a mat t er o f so un d t r ial s t r at eg y. 2 Af ter oralargumen

t in this case, we granted the parties l eave to fi le addi tional briefi ng so that they cou l d add re ss th e iss ue s i n l i gh t of ou r explanati on at or al

argumen t t hat the Fri edm

an t es t is in apposite. Though

muc h of the State's supplem

ental briefi ng restates the Fri edm

an argumen ts we
re f ute ab ov e, th e S tate

also add ed a n ar gument t hat defens e co unse l's failure t o o bject t o t he ple arelated t est imony may have been p ar t o f a s trate gy of pre senti ng the tes ti mony outri gh t i ns tead of allo win g t he St at e t o us e it to impeach d efenda nt if he wer e t o t est ify. Ag ain, ho weve r, t he St at e's
ar gument do es no t offer any st ra t egic r eas on fo r a llowing t he ad mission o f the po rt ion o f defend ant 's test im ony relating to p lea n

egot iations. Because the Stat e does not make an y pe rsuasi ve argumen

t t hat t he int r o du ct io n o f t he sp ec ific t est imony abou t which de fendant now co mplains co uld have been p ar t of a so und trial strategy, weNo. 2-- 05--0366

-10-

must co nclude t hat co unse l'sas sent to th e adm i ss i on of the tes ti mony wa s, i nd ee d, n ot a m atte r of sound trial

strategy. Accordin

gly , we agree with de fen

dant that, when counsel

stipul ated to al l ow defend ant 's tes ti

mony reg ard i ng hi s p l ea ne gotiati ons to be rea d to the j ury

, cou ns el 's l evel of performance f

ell below an objective standard of reasonablenes s. Having determi

ned that defe

ndan t has satis fi

ed the fi rst pro ng of the St rick land anal ys is , we must determi ne wh ether defen

dant has dem

onstrated, under

t he se co nd pr ong , t hat he was prej udic ed by h i s c ounse l ' s b el

ow- sta n da rd perf orm an ce . A s def

en da n t poi n ts out , and as we n

ot ed above, our
su pr eme co ur t ha s s t at ed t ha t a R ule 402(f) violation is consi dered so dev astati

n g a n d p re j udi ci al to a de fendant tha

t i t con sti tutes rev ers i bl e error e ve n a bs en t a c onte m pora ne ousobj ec ti on

from trial counsel and ev en i n the f ace o f o ve r wh elmin g evi dence of guil t. See Fri edm

an , 79 Ill . 2d at 353 ("T he State doe s n ot ar gue , no r w ou ld we a gr ee, t hat t he ad mission o f this t est imony was harml

ess
orthat t he error was wai ved b y de fen dant's f ai lure to object. Thi s cour t, de spit e o ver whelming evi dence of the def endan t's guilt and de spi

te his fai lure to object, has recogni

zed the devas

tating ef fect of su ch t est imony

and h el d that the e

rror wasso prejudicial

as to requ

i re rev ersa l ***. [C i tations.] We hold t hat defend an

t was deni

ed the righ

t t o a fai r trial by the in tro duction of a pl

ea-related di scu ssi on i n v i ola tion of R ul e 402 (f )"). Though t he S t at e d id

no t o ffe ran y a r gu men t o n t he pr eju dic e p r o ng in it s init ial br ief, it
argues i n i

ts supp l em

en tal br i ef tha t cou ns el 's as sent to th

e adm i ss i on of the tes ti mony i n q ue sti on
canno t have be en pr ejudicial, beca use defend ant 's adm is si on in the Bo and trial

t hat he pr ovid ed t he vic t im with a contro ll ed substance m

atched the adm

is si on he m

ade i n a state men t to police that was also adm itted in to evi dence i n d ef en da nt' s tri al . Th us , th e Sta

te a rgues , "D ef

en da nt' s adm i ss i on thatNo. 2-- 05--0366

-11-

he ha d u nla wfu ll

y de li ver ed a c ontr ol l ed su bs tan cewoul d have b een b ef

ore th e j ury , re ga rdl es s of whether def

endan t's testim ony a t t he Bo and tria

l had be en i ntroduc ed i

nto ev i den ce." The St at e's a rg ument misses t he po int. The ad m i ss i on of de f en da nt' s p riortes ti

mony wa s n ot
an all-o r- not hing pr op os itio n. Even i f the rem ai nder of def

endan t's testim ony duri ng Boand' s trial

was adm is si ble, defen se counsel

co uld have objec t ed t o t he ad mission o f the discr et e po rt ion o f the t est imony that d efendan

t now ar gues c aused

him prejud ice, inste ad o f acqu iescing t o a llowing t he t es t imo ny init s e nt ir et y. The St at e also ar gue s t hat t he t est imony canno t have be en p rejud i cial be caus e the

j ury acqui tt ed de fend ant o f o n e o f t he ch ar ge s a ga inst him. Ho we ve r , as de fen da nt po int s o ut in his
su pp lemen t al r ep ly brie f, defendan t was st il l convi cted o f two o ther charges, an d there i s n o rea son to concl ude t h at the ad mission o f the plea- re late d t est imony was p re judicial only as t o o ne o f the charges. Giv

en the supreme court 's statement that the admi ss io n o f testim ony regardi

ng plea nego t iatio ns i s "d

ev astati ng," we ho ld t ha t de fen da nt wa s p r eju dic ed as a r es ult of h i s counsel 's f ail ure to se ek a re da cti on be f ore def endan t's pri or testi

mony waspres en

ted. Accordingl

y, we m ust reverse
an d r ema nd t his c au se fo ra n ew t r ial. We not e t hat re t rial in this ca se w ill not violat e de fendant 's pr o t ec t io ns a ga inst do ub le jeo pa r dy, beca use we find t hat t he evi dence prese

nted h ere w as suf f i ci en t to pr ov e def en da n t gui l ty beyond a reasonabl

e doubt. See Peo ple v. Mink , 141 Ill . 2d 163, 173-74 (1990) (although t he do ub le je opardy claus e bar s t he St at e fro m ret rying a d efenda nt after a revi ewi ng court has determi

ned that t he ev id enc e a t t ria l wa s leg ally insu fficient t o co nvict , t hat cla us e d o es no t pr ec lud e r et ria l o f a defend ant whose convi ction ha s been s et aside due t o a n er ro r in t he pr oc eed ings lead ing t o t he
conv i cti on).No. 2-- 05--0366

-12-

In order to obtai

n a conv i cti on of del i very of a controlled s

ubstance, the State must prove that
a defend ant kno wingly "manufact ur e[ d] or deliver [e d] , o r p os sess [e d] wit h intent to man uf ac ture or del i ver, a c o nt r o lled o rco un t er feit su bst an ce o rco nt r o ll e d substanc e anal og." 720 ILCS 570/401 (West 2002)
. The evi

dence agai

nst def endan t o n thi s count in

cl uded poli ce testim ony tha t defend ant ad mit t ed giv ing t he vic t im a V ico din pill. In o r de rt o o bt ain a c o nvic t io n o f invo lun t ar y mans la ugh ter, th e S tate

m us t prov e th

at a defend ant r ec kle ss ly

com m i tted a ctstha t "c au se [d] the

de ath [or were] li kel y to cause death or great bo dily harm to some i

ndi vi dual ." 720 ILCS 5/9--3(a) (West 2002). Brief ly , the e v iden

ce agains t defen dant on this

count inc lude d

expe rt t est imony

t hat a met hado ne o ver do se w as t he ca use of t he victim's dea t h, t est imony from de fendant 's co mpanions that t hey had al l i ngested m ethadone provide d by Boa nd, t est imony from de fendant 's co mpanions and p olice ( re po rt ing st at ement s fro m the companions) t hat defend ant pr event ed a not her friendfro m calling 911 e ar lier t o s ummon help for t he vic t im, and par amedic a nd exp er t t est imony t hat ear lier inte rve nt ion may have p re vent ed t he vict im's dea t h. The evi

dence on b ot h the del

iv ery-of -a-contro ll

ed-substance

count an d t he inv o lunt ar yma nsl aughter count was suff

ic ie nt to convi

nce a rati onal

trier of f act that t he el

em ents of the ch

arged crim es ha d b ee n p r o ve n be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t , an d, t he r efo r e, r et r ial w ill no t o ffen d d o ub le jeopardy prin

cipl es. Defend ant 's sec ond con

ten ti on on appe al i s th at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n al l owi n g th e S tate to elic it t es t imo ny fr o m awi

tn es s to t he effect t hat a co defend ant had no nco nsensu al sex w ith her dur ing the even in g in question. The testim

ony i ncl uded the fol

lowi ng exchan

ge: Q. [A ss i sta

n t Sta te' s A ttorn ey ] D o y ou rem em b er --w h at d o you rem

em ber af ter hav in g drank the second dose of me thadone?No. 2-- 05--0366

-13- A. N ot much. Q. What ’s t he n ex

t t hing you act ually do r emember a fte r ha ving dr ank t hat sec ond dose of m ethadone? A. Li ke the fi rst t im e I woke up? Q. Yes, the fi

rst t im e y ou woke up. A. Josh b ei

ng on top o f m

e. Q. What was h

e doin g? A. Tryi ng to have sex

ual in tercour se wi

th me. Q. Had y ou ev er disc us se d h av i n g s ex ual i n tercou rs e wi th h i m th at n i gh t? A . No. Q. Did yo u w an t t o ha ve se xu al int er co ur se wit h him? A. N o." Defens e counsel

obje cted and a si

debar was h

el d. Defense counsel

arguedt hat t he t est imony about
a sep arate cri

me was i rrelev an t to t he charges agai nst def endan t and was prej udicial

to hi m . T h e Sta te responded

t hat "t he fact is tha t [d efenda nt ] ha s ad mitt ed t hat [Bo and] said he was go ing to try and have sex

with her that night and the methadone was a date-ra pe dru g." Th e tri al courtoverruled t he objec t ion, st at ing t hat : ( 1) t he St at e had t he righ t t o ask the witnes s what she reme mb ered; (2) t he t es t imo ny w as r ele va nt t o sho w mo t ive ; a nd ( 3) t he t es t imo ny w as no t pr eju dic ial. On ly relev ant evi dence m ay be adm itted at t rial, that is, evi

dence h avi ng a ten den cy to pr ove or disprove a f

act t hat is of co nseq uenc e t o t he de t er minatio n of t he action. People v . Harvey, 211 I ll. 2d 3 68, 392 (2 004 ). "Ho weve r, even w hen evide nce is r elevant , it may, in the trial co ur t 's discr et ion, be exclud ed if its p re judicial effect subs t ant ially ou t weighs its probat iv

e val ue." Pe o pleNo. 2-- 05--0366

-14-

v. Le wis , 165 Ill . 2d305 , 3 29 ( 199 5) . T hus, in deciding whether to admi t evidence, a trial court must wei gh the li kel y prejudic ia

l e ff ect of e vi den ce agai nst itsproba

tiv e v al ue. Peo ple v. Wal

ker , 21 1 I ll. 2d 317, 338 (2004)
. We begin wit h t he t rial co ur t 's first st at ed jus t ifi cat ion fo r a llowing t he evide nce. Tho ugh t he evi dence may have bee n pr oba t iveon the i ssue of the w i tnes s' s m em ory after she had taken the drug, her re co llectio n of e vent s aft er t aking the drug does not appear t o have b een dis puted. Therefore, to the extent the wi

tness's testim ony was probative as t o he r r eco llectio n, i ts p rob ati ve va l uedi d n ot out wei gh it s p r eju dic ial eff

ect. As for the trial

court 's se cond basi

s, a fai r readin g of the trial transcript i

ndicates that the Stat e argued that the test im ony was rel evan

t as establis

hi ng a potential mot ivefor defend ant 's ac t ions ( or inact ion) dur ing t he tim e that the vi ctim

was dy in g, and the trial courtcorrect ly

found the ev

ide nceto be rel

evan t for that r eason. However, we di sagree wi th the trial courtt hat t he evi den

ce was n ot prej udicial

to def endan t. Th e evi denc e of Boa nd 's sexu al as sa ul t on t he wi tne ss wa s g raphi c a nd woul d te nd

to col or a juror's

vi ew of de fendant , t her eby aro using "prej udic e an

d hosti l i ty on th e p art of the jury." See Pe o ple v. La mpk in , 98 Ill . 2d 418, 428 (1983)
. T hus, t his e vid en ce sho uld be ad mit t ed o nly if it s p r o ba t ive va lue o ut we igh s t he like ly pr eju dic e . Moreov er, in

weighi ng the probativ

e val ue of evidence against t he l ikel y prej udice, a trial court must consider wh et he rt he ev ide nc e c o uld be r ep lac ed by o t he r , les s p r eju dic ial e vid en ce . He r e, it is po ss ible t hat , fo r t he pu rp os e o f pro vingmo t ive , t he ev ide nc e r eg ar din g B o an d' s s ex ua l as sa ult co uld be replaced by

less infl ammato ry evidenc e r ega rd ing Bo and's co nver sat ion wit h defend ant re gar ding his pla ns to have s ex wi

th the witne ss. See Wal

ker , 211 Il l . 2d at 33 9 (" t he pr os ecu t ion has no ent itlement or right to pr esent evi dence that i s unf

ai rly prejudi ci al when equa lly probati

ve,No. 2-- 05--0366

-15-

nonp re judicial evidenc e is available and will serve t he sam e purp ose") . If

thi s iss ueari se s a gai n on
rem an d, th e tri al cou rt sh oul d pr oce ed i n a man ne r con sistent w i th th i s op i ni on . For t he r ea so ns g iven, we re ver se t he ju dg ment o f t he c irc uit co ur t o f Lake Count y and
r ema nd t he ca us e fo rr et r ial. Reversed a

nd rem anded. HUTC HINSO

N an d GILLERA

N JO HNSO

N, JJ ., conc

ur.