2015 IL App (3d) 080829-C

Opinion filed March 5, 2015 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2015 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

ALBERT L. FIELDS, ) 

 ) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 14th Judicial Circuit, 

Henry County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-08-0829 

Circuit No. 07-CF-37 

The Honorable 

Larry S. Vandersnick, 

Judge, Presiding. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justice Schmidt specially concurred, with opinion. 

 Justice Lytton dissented, with opinion. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant, Albert L. Fields, was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual 

assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2006)), three counts of criminal sexual assault 

(720 ILCS 5/12-13(a)(1), (a)(3) (West 2006)), and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual 

abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16(b) (West 2006)). 

¶ 2 Defendant appealed his convictions. We reversed and remanded for a new trial on the 

sole ground that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney was 
2 

laboring under a per se conflict of interest. We did not reach defendant's remaining issues on 

appeal. People v. Fields, 409 Ill. App. 3d 398 (2011). 

¶ 3 Thereafter, the supreme court reversed our decision (Fields, 409 Ill. App. 3d 398) and 

directed us to consider Athose issues previously raised but left unresolved owing to [our] 

disposition.@ People v. Fields, 2012 IL 112438, & 43. 

¶ 4 Upon subsequent review, we affirmed the trial court=s judgment. People v. Fields, 2013 

IL App (3d) 080829-B. We did not reach the question of whether the reversal of defendant's 

conviction in a previous case, which was admitted as propensity evidence in the present case, 

required reversal of the instant conviction here on appeal. Fields, 2013 IL App (3d) 080829-B, 

¶ 28. Instead, because the earlier conviction was not reversed until after the conclusion of the 

instant trial, we held that the reversal of the underlying case constituted "new evidence." Fields, 

2013 IL App (3d) 080829-B, ¶ 28. Therefore, we held that this issue must be brought in a 

postconviction petition. Fields, 2013 IL App (3d) 080829-B, ¶ 28. In so holding, we expressly 

noted that we lacked supervisory authority to step outside the limitations of the supreme court 

rules governing appeals. Fields, 2013 IL App (3d) 080829-B, ¶ 28. 

¶ 5 Thereafter, the supreme court directed us to vacate our prior judgment (Fields, 2013 IL 

App (3d) 080829-B) and, without requiring the filing of a postconviction petition, to "resolve all 

of the issues identified *** in paragraphs 17 and 28 of its vacated judgment." People v. Fields, 

No. 117121 (Ill. Mar. 26, 2014). 

¶ 6 Upon vacating our prior judgment, we entered a minute order directing the parties to 

submit additional briefing on the precise question of whether defendant's conviction in the 

instant case must be reversed in light of the fact his previous conviction that had served as 
3 

propensity evidence had been reversed.1

 People v. Fields, No. 3-08-0829 (October 31, 2014) 

(minute order). Upon review, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand the matter for a 

new trial.

¶ 7 FACTS

¶ 8 On January 5, 2007, defendant was charged by information alleging that between 1999 

and October 27, 2004, defendant, age 17 or older, did, on two separate occasions, place his penis 

in K.N.J.=s mouth when she was younger than 13 (counts I and II predatory criminal sexual 

assault of a child); between 1999 and February 2006, did place his penis in K.N.J.=s mouth by the 

use or threat of force (count III criminal sexual assault); between 1999 and February 2006, did, 

on two separate occasions, place his penis in K.N.J.=s mouth when she was younger than 18 and 

he was her stepfather (counts IV and V criminal sexual assault); and between 2001 and February 

2006, did fondle K.N.J.=s breasts and vagina and made her fondle his penis for his sexual arousal 

or gratification when she was younger than 18 and he was her stepfather (counts VI and VII 

aggravated criminal sexual abuse).

¶ 9 Prior to trial, the circuit court granted the State=s motion to introduce other-crimes 

evidence pursuant to section 115-7.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (the Code) (725 

ILCS 5/115-7.3 (West 2008)). Specifically, the court allowed evidence regarding an incident of 

 

1 Our minute order also stated: "We remind the parties that evidence of the prior conviction was 

admitted on the issue of defendant's propensity to commit the offenses with which he was 

charged in the instant case; that the circuit court expressly held that the conviction could not be 

used to impeach defendant if he decided to testify; and that any argument or authority premised 

on the use of prior convictions for impeachment is irrelevant." Justice Schmidt dissented from 

this portion of the minute order. 
4 

aggravated criminal sexual abuse which formed the basis for a conviction in Rock Island County. 

The parties disputed the form in which that evidence would be presented. Defendant argued that 

testimony about the prior incident would be appropriate but not a certified copy of conviction. 

The State contended, and the circuit court agreed, that the prosecution could present both. 

Ultimately, the court held that the State could present the certified copy of conviction as well as 

testimony.

¶ 10 During trial, the State tendered People=s Exhibit No. 8, a certified copy of defendant=s 

conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Rock Island County. The circuit court 

admitted the exhibit and told the jurors it was admitted on the issue of defendant=s propensity to 

commit the offenses with which he was charged in this case, and it was up to them to determine 

how much weight it should be given. The court expressly ruled, however, that the conviction 

could not be used to impeach defendant=s credibility if he chose to testify.

¶ 11 The State also called C.S. to offer testimony concerning defendant=s conviction of 

aggravated criminal sexual abuse in Rock Island County. C.S. testified that she was born on 

September 12, 1996. She lived in Moline with her mother and defendant. One morning, 

defendant gave her a book containing photographs of naked women and told her to put it on his 

weight set in the basement. He then followed C.S. downstairs, put her hand on his Awee wee@

and made her rub it. Defendant also put his hand down C.S.=s pants and stuck his finger inside 

her. C.S. was nine years old at the time. Defendant told C.S. that he would spank her if she told 

anyone. C.S. eventually told her mother after defendant had kicked them out of the house. 

¶ 12 K.N.J. testified that she lived with her mother, brother, two sisters, and her mother's 

boyfriend, defendant.2

 At some point, defendant and K.N.J.=s mother married. K.N.J. testified to 

 

2

 Defendant resided with both C.S. and K.N.J. at different times. 
5 

a series of sexual incidents involving her and defendant. On one occasion, defendant asked 

K.N.J. to lift her shirt and her bra. She did so and defendant stared at her. He said it was 

punishment because she had been mean to her mother. On subsequent occasions, defendant 

would ask her to lift her shirt and bra and defendant would touch her breasts. Sometimes, 

defendant would touch her breasts with one hand and masturbate with the other. K.N.J. also 

recalled other incidents in which defendant made her touch his penis with her hand and put his 

penis in her mouth. She also recalled him touching her Aprivate area.@ All these incidents 

happened at home and when everyone else living in the home was either asleep or not around. 

K.N.J. could not remember how many times these things happened, nor could she recall all the 

particulars of each incident. 

¶ 13 K.N.J. further testified that defendant moved out for good after a woman from 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) came to the home to speak with her and 

other members of her family. When K.N.J. was told the woman wanted to talk to her, defendant 

made a gesture to K.N.J. as if to tell her to keep her lips Azipped.@ The woman subsequently 

asked if defendant had ever touched K.N.J. K.N.J. responded no and stated she would tell her 

mother if anyone had inappropriate contact with her. At this point, DCFS had not received any 

complaints about defendant abusing K.N.J. The visit to K.N.J.=s home resulted from C.S.=s 

complaints against defendant. K.N.J. eventually informed her mother of defendant=s alleged 

abuse. K.N.J.=s mother subsequently contacted the authorities. 

¶ 14 Officer Richard Turley testified that he interviewed defendant. Defendant denied he 

abused K.N.J. He stated that K.N.J.=s mother must have put her up to it after learning he had an 

affair with another woman (C.S.=s mother).
6 

¶ 15 Defendant testified that he and his daughter, Ashley, moved in with K.N.J. and K.N.J.=s 

family in 2000. Defendant denied ever having sexual contact with K.N.J. He also denied having 

sexual contact with C.S. Defendant admitted having an affair with C.S.=s mother. While 

incarcerated in jail awaiting trial on the charges brought by C.S., defendant received a letter from 

K.N.J.=s mother stating she was not sure she could continue to be a good wife because she would 

want to get even with him for cheating on her. In rebuttal, the State called K.N.J.=s mother. She 

admitted writing defendant while he was in jail but denied threatening retaliation based on his 

affair with C.S.=s mother. 

¶ 16 Following deliberations, in the instant case, the jury found defendant guilty on all seven 

counts. At the conclusion of defendant=s sentencing hearing, the court vacated the three criminal 

sexual assault convictions (counts III, IV, and V) on one-act, one-crime grounds, and imposed 

consecutive sentences of 18 years= imprisonment for each conviction of predatory criminal 

sexual assault of a child (counts I and II), and concurrent sentences of 6 years= imprisonment for 

each conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (counts VI and VII).

¶ 17 On September 30, 2009, subsequent to defendant=s conviction and sentence in the instant 

case, a different panel of this court reversed defendant=s Rock Island County conviction 

(hereinafter, Rock Island) (charges involving C.S.) on the basis that his trial counsel, having 

previously represented C.S., was laboring under a per se conflict of interest. People v. Fields, 

No. 3-07-0305 (Sept. 30, 2009) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). The panel 

remanded the matter for a new trial.

¶ 18 On remand (April 15, 2010), the State filed a motion to dismiss the Rock Island charges 

(abuse of C.S.) with leave to reinstate. The circuit court granted the State=s motion. Rock Island 
7 

County=s docket sheet does not show that the State refiled the charges against defendant.3

 Thus, 

at the present time, it appears no conviction or charges exist with regard to any alleged sexual 

conduct defendant had with C.S. 

¶ 19 ANALYSIS

¶ 20 The issue before us is narrow: Whether the subsequent reversal of defendant's underlying 

prior conviction admitted to show propensity requires reversal and a new trial. Both parties 

acknowledge that this question has never been addressed by an Illinois court. The State 

implicitly concedes that subsequent reversal of a propensity conviction results in injustice. 

However, the State argues that any resulting injustice in the instant case is harmless due to the 

remaining evidence against defendant. We disagree. 

¶ 21 At the outset, we note that the reversal of an underlying prior conviction admitted to 

show propensity does not result in automatic reversal. Only structural error justifies automatic 

reversal. People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 608 (2010). Errors recognized as structural 

include a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the 

selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a 

defective reasonable doubt instruction. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 608. The instant case does not 

fall within one of the above categories.

¶ 22 Instead, we find that the reversal of the underlying case constitutes "new evidence" in 

light of the fact that the conviction was in good standing at the time of instant trial.4

 Thus, in 

 

3 After vacating our previous order, we directed the circuit court to determine whether defendant 

had been recharged. On October 24, 2014, we received Rock Island County's docket showing 

that the last activity in the file was defendant's pro se demand for speedy trial and/or quash 

warrant that was filed on October 4, 2012. 
8 

order to obtain reversal of his instant conviction defendant must show that the "new evidence" 

would probably change the result upon retrial. People v. Davis, 2012 IL App (4th) 110305, ¶ 62. 

The Supreme Court of the United States recently explained: "A reasonable probability does not 

mean that the defendant ‘would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the 

evidence,’ only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to 'undermine[ ] 

confidence in the outcome of the trial.' " Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. ___, ___,132 S. Ct. 627, 630 

(2012) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)). Upon review, we hold that the 

admission of the underlying conviction played such a significant role in defendant's trial, in light 

of the lack of direct evidence, that any confidence in defendant's conviction in the instant case is 

undermined upon the subsequent reversal of the underlying conviction. 

¶ 23 "[T]he legislature enacted section 115-7.3 of [the Code] to enable courts to admit 

evidence of other crimes to show defendant's propensity to commit sex offenses***." People v. 

Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 176 (2003). In the seminal case of Donoho, the supreme court 

expressly held that such evidence "strengthens evidence in sexual abuse cases." Donoho, 204 Ill. 

2d at 178. 

¶ 24 The case at bar balanced the credibility of K.N.J's accusations against the credibility of 

defendant's denials. There were no eyewitnesses or physical evidence. Defendant did not make 

any incriminating statements. We also note the similarities between the facts of the Rock Island 

conviction and the present case. Both incidents occurred within a family-type relationship and 

involved children in the same age range (C.S. was born in 1996, K.N.J. was born in 1991). Both 

incidents involved female children of women with whom defendant was currently living. Both 

 4

 While the reversal of the underlying conviction is not tangible "new evidence," i.e., DNA 

evidence, we view it as intangible "new evidence." 
9 

incidents involved defendant either inserting his finger in or touching the girl's vagina. Both 

incidents involved defendant forcing the girls to touch his penis. Under these particular 

circumstances, it is beyond reasonable that the entire case turned upon the admission of the 

underlying conviction was critical to the State's ability to secure defendant's conviction. 

¶ 25 In coming to this conclusion, we reject the State's argument that C.S's testimony 

regarding the conduct involving the conviction renders the admission of the conviction harmless. 

We initially point out the inherent disconnect in the State's argument. At trial, the State correctly 

argued that the admission of the conviction was extremely probative to show defendant's 

propensity to commit the charged offense.5 Curiously, the State now argues on appeal that the 

admission of the conviction did not truly matter due to C.S.'s testimony. We reject such 

contradictory reasoning. Moreover, C.S.'s testimony standing alone is much less compelling 

than an actual conviction of the same alleged conduct. The conviction informs the jury that 

defendant was previously found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the same type of offense. 

Absent the conviction, the jury would have been left to determine C.S.'s credibility in light of 

defendant's denials of any improper conduct with C.S. The conviction, however, validates C.S.'s 

allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and also strengthens the credibility of K.N.J.'s claim that 

defendant committed the same type of offense against her.

¶ 26 We also reject the State's reliance upon the fact that the underlying conviction "was not 

reversed on the grounds that the evidence against defendant was insufficient." This has no 

bearing on our analysis. The only fact that matters is that the conviction was reversed and 

 

5 The underlying conviction was properly admitted at trial due to the fact that it was in good 

standing at the time and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.
10 

therefore defendant is presumed innocent until he is retried and proven guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See People v. Weinstein, 35 Ill. 2d 467, 469-70 (1966). 

¶ 27 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse defendant's conviction in the instant case and 

remand the matter for a new trial.

¶ 28 Reversed and remanded. 

¶ 29 JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring.

¶ 30 The State has posed the remaining issue for us as follows: "The People urge this Court to 

consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether any error resulting from the 

admission of a subsequently-reversed conviction was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new 

trial." 

¶ 31 In this case, defendant was on trial for molesting K.N.J. C.S. testified that defendant had 

also molested her. The State then put on evidence that defendant had been convicted of the 

crimes alleged by C.S. This evidence, from a real world, commonsense standpoint told the jury 

that a court had previously determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.S. was telling the 

truth. This evidence reduced defendant's likelihood of being found not guilty to virtually nil. I 

agree that the error requires a new trial.

¶ 32 Put another way, defendant's first conviction for crimes alleged by C.S. was reversed on 

the basis that defendant's lawyer at that time was suffering under a per se conflict and denied 

defendant his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. That defective conviction 

was then used not only to establish that defendant had a propensity to molest children, but also to 

basically tell the jury that one of the witnesses at trial had already been determined by a court to 

be telling the truth. It seems that our system of justice cannot tolerate this scenario. In that 

regard, I point out that I do not think that a subsequent reversal of the conviction always 
11 

demands retrial. That is, this is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. However, on the facts of this 

case, I agree that the subsequent reversal of defendant's prior conviction, which was admitted not 

only to show propensity, but which also undoubtedly told the jury that everything C.S. said was 

fact, requires reversal and a new trial. 

¶ 33 JUSTICE LYTTON, dissenting.

¶ 34 I agree that the admission of defendant's prior conviction was error. I dissent because I 

believe the error was harmless. 

¶ 35 While the prior conviction used against defendant was reversed on grounds of 

constitutional error, no particular constitutional right of defendant was affronted by the court's 

acceptance of a prior conviction that was later reversed on appeal. The issue involves a question 

of error in a prior conviction's admission into evidence. A purely evidentiary error is harmless 

where there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant absent 

the error. In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172, 180 (2006). 

¶ 36 There was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found defendant guilty of predatory 

criminal sexual assault without the prior conviction before it. Use of the prior conviction was 

only one piece of evidence the State presented to prove defendant's guilt. In addition to the 

victim's testimony, the jury also heard the credible testimony of C.S, the victim in the prior case, 

regarding defendant's acts of sexual abuse against her. C.S. testified that when she was nine 

years old defendant put her hand on his penis and made her rub it. He also put his hand down 

her pants and stuck his finger inside her. This testimony was thorough; it supplied the necessary 

facts to be properly admitted as other crimes evidence. See People v. Baldwin, 2014 IL App 

(1st) 121725, ¶ 73 (testimony of prior sexual assault is admissible under section 115-7.3 of the 

Code even though the defendant has been acquitted of the prior offense). C.S.'s testimony 
12 

allowed the jury to consider the relevance of her testimony as other crimes evidence even 

without admitting proof of the prior conviction. Moreover, C.S.'s testimony regarding 

defendant's conduct in the prior case was consistent with K.N.J.'s testimony regarding 

defendant's sexual acts in this case. K.N.J. also claimed that defendant made her touch his penis, 

that defendant touched her "private area" and that defendant fondled her for his sexual 

gratification.

¶ 37 The evidence, apart from the admission of defendant's prior conviction, was sufficient to 

allow any rational trier of fact to find that the elements of the offense had been proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted 

defendant if the trial court had not admitted the prior conviction. I would therefore affirm

defendant's conviction in this case.