2013 I LApp (1st) 123333 FI FTH DIVI SI ON NOVEMB ER 8, 2013

No. 1-12-2333 THE PEOPL E OF THE STATE OF I L L I NOI S, ) Appea l from the

) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee , ) Cook County
. ) v. ) No. 11 CR 10475 ) SABER DAH EYA, ) Honora ble ) L arr

y G. Axelrood, Def endant- Appellant. ) J udg e Presiding
. PRES I DI NG JUS TI CE GORDON de livered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion. J ustices Palmer a

nd Taylor conc urre d in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION ¶ 1 Followinga benc h trial, defe ndant Saber Dahe y a wa s convicted of four c ounts of ag g rava ted dischar g e of a

firea rm and sente nced to se ven y ear s in the I llinois Depa rtment of Correc tions. 720 I L CS 5/ 24-1.2(a )(2) (West 2008). At trial, three ey ewitnesses, Jermaine F ox , Fox’s gir lfriend Ama

nda Padilla, and Nde yiah Corneh, testified that, on J une 14, 2011, they wer e trave ling in a minivan ne ar Jensen Park in Chicag o when they observe d defe ndant running toward the ir vehicle aiming a handgun and hea

rd four shots being f

ired. F ox and Padilla testified that defe ndant was a

member of

the Conservative Vice L ords stree t ga ng , which wa s a hostile rival to the g angthat Fox was associated with, the Simon C ity Roy als. Fox and Padilla also

1 testified that Christian Ramos and Z ay Russell were w ith defenda nt at the time of the shooting ; As the trial cour

t noted, the issue of g ang

membership is an “ amorphous” c oncept, since 1 the eyewitnesses disting uished betwe en g angmembership and g angaff iliation, while personally denying a ny curr ent associa

tion with gang s.No. 1-12-2333

howeve r, Ramos testified that he w as in school that eve ning a nd the par ties stipulated that Russell was not present be cause he wa s incarc erated. Responding police off icer J ohn Geisbush testified that he r ecove red f our bullet shell casing s at the sce ne of the crime, thoug h he did not discover a

ny proper ty damag e to nea

rby residenc es or ve hicles. ¶ 2 A fourth e y ewitness, Jessica Palmer, sig ned a ha ndwritten statement f

or the police that stated that she obse rved de fenda nt running toward the vehicle holding his waistband moments befor e she he ard gunshots, but she reca nted her statement at trial, c laiming that she did not observe defe ndant and that the police forc ed her to sign the state ment. Assistant St ate’ s Attorney (ASA) B ob Groe bner te stified that Palmer provided he r sig ned stateme nt voluntarily and without
coer cion. ¶ 3 On this direct appe al, def endant c laims that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a
rea sonable doubt bec ause the re is no phy sical evide nce that links defendant to the c rime, and that Fox and Padilla are biased witnesse s since they are aff iliated with a stree t ga

ng that is a rival with defe ndant’s g ang . Def

endant a lso points t o inconsistencies in F ox ' s and Padilla’s testimony to argue that they

are not cre dible, such as the misidentifica tion of Ramos and Russell at the scene of the c rime. De fenda

nt also argues that Corneh’ s testimony alone is not sufficie nt to affirm the conviction bec ause she testified that she did not ac tually observe defe ndant fire the handgun. For the followingrea sons, we af firm def endant’ s conviction and sente nce. ¶ 4 BA CKGROUND ¶ 5 Prior to trial, defe ndant was c harg ed with four c ounts of ag g rava ted dischar g e of a

firea rm and thre e counts of attempted murder. T he State ar g ued in its opening statement at trial that
2No. 1-12-2333

defe ndant fire d a handgun at Padilla and F ox ’s vehicle beca use they wer e af filiated with a riva l g ang . The State c alled seve n witnesses, including four e y ewitnesses, two police office rs, and the assistant State’s Attorney who obtained the ha

ndwritten statement f

rom Palmer. The defe nse called Christian Ramos, who testified that he was in school dur ing the shooting, a nd Detec tive Thomas Kolman, who testified that he ca nvassed the a

rea near the cr ime scene the day

afte r the shooting a

nd did not find any

proper ty damag e or a dditional witnesses. Defe ndant exercised his constitutional right not to testify
. ¶ 6 I . Amanda Padilla’ s Testimony ¶ 7 Amanda Padilla testified that she is 18 y ear s old and that J erma ine Fox is her boy friend. On the eve ning of

J une 14, 2011, F ox was drivinga motor vehic le to pick up her friend, N deyiah Corneh, at Jensen Park in Chicag o, and Padilla was sitting in the f ront passeng er side of

the vehicle. F ox was drivinghis gr andfather’s minivan southbound on North L awnda le Avenue , which is a sing le-lane , one-w ay street with vehic les parke d on eac h side of the stre et. J ensen Par k is located on the w est side of L awnda le Avenue , betwee n L eland Ave nue on the nor th and Wil son Avenue on the south. Fox stopped the vehicle ha lfway down the block, a

nd Corneh enter ed the pa sseng er side of the vehicle and sat in the ba ckseat behind Padilla. Fox continued driving south on L awnda le Avenue and slowed down as they approa ched the intersec tion at Wil son Avenue
. ¶ 8 At that point, Padill a obser ved a group of pe ople walkingalongthe sidewa lk on the west side of L awnda le Avenue , and she r ecognized them as defe ndant, J essica Palmer , Christian Ramos, J err ell Russell, and Z ay Russell. P adilla knew de fenda nt beca use she ha d previously
3No. 1-12-2333

observe d him two or three times pe r we ek at sc hool, in the neig hborhood, and in Jensen Park. Padilla identified defe ndant in court. As the group wa lked nea r the ve hicle, Padilla fe lt concer ned for he r saf

ety beca use there was hostility

betwee n the stree t ga

ng that people in the g roup we re members of

, the Conservative Vice L ords, and the g angthat Fox was associated with, the Simon City Roy als. ¶ 9 As the vehic le stopped at the stop sig n at the interse ction of L awnda le and Wilson Avenue s, Padilla observed de fenda nt run toward the m, while the re st of the g roup stay ed behind and watched. De fenda

nt stopped at the cor

ner, r emoved a

black ha ndg un from under

his shirt, and pointed it at the vehic le. Padilla asked F ox to drive aw ay , saying, “ Go. He ha s a gun,” but Fox had to wait for a

jogg er that was cr ossing the inter section on the other side of Wilson Avenue . Def

endant then a djusted the handgun as F ox drove through the intersec tion. From a distance “ [a] bout a ca

r’s leng th away ,” def

endant f ired four shots at the vehicle. Padilla ha d an unobstructed view

of def endant, a nd it was still day light. ¶ 10 After

defe ndant fire d at the vehic le, people in the pa rk, including defe ndant, ra n in various dire ctions. Fox continued to drive south on L awnda le Avenue from the inter section as Padilla called the police on her c ellular tele phone. F ox then re turned to the pa rk, and se vera l police off icer s arr ived. Padilla exit ed the ve hicle and told the of fice rs what she observe d. She identified def

endant a s the shooter, a

nd she voluntarily

looked up his last name by logg ing on to Fa cebook on he r ce llular telephone
. ¶ 11 On cr oss-examination, P adilla testified that she w as not a membe r of a ny street g ang , but admitted that she has be en found “ delinquent” a s a minor for posse ssion of a stolen motor
4No. 1-12-2333

vehicle. Padilla testified that, the day afte r the shooting , she did not tell Detec tives Kolman and Katz that defe ndant was a g angmember, or

that she had obse rved the entire group running 2 toward the corne r with defe ndant, ra ther than standingbehind. ¶ 12 Padilla admitted that, when she w arne d Fox that defenda nt had a ha

ndg un, Fox was alre ady fac ing f orwa rd and did not look bac k as he dr ove through the intersec tion. She observed Corneh duckingher he ad down. At that moment, Padilla also turned a round and f

ace d forwa

rd as the vehicle drove through the intersec tion. Padill a first testified that she observe d the handg un discharg e, but when a sked to descr ibe what she observe d, she admitted that she did not ac tually observe defe ndant fire the gun but hear d the first shot. Padilla observed de fenda nt aiming the handgun with two hands, but did not observe a ny bullets strike the vehicle . At the time, Padilla, Fox, and Corneh did not display g angsigns or

y ell out the window to instigate the shooting. ¶ 13 I I . J erma ine Fox’s Testimony ¶ 14 J erma ine Fox testified that Padilla is his girlfrie nd. On J une 14, 2011, he a nd Padilla were trave ling in his g randf

ather ’s minivan to pick up Padilla’s friend Corne h at J ensen Par k. After picking up Corneh, F ox drove the vehicle southbound on L awnda le Avenue , a one- way street, and slowed down as he a

pproac hed a stop sig n at the interse ction with Wi lson Avenue. F ox observe d a g roup of pe ople walkingsouth along the sidewa lk in J ensen Par k, but he did not pay attention at first to who wa s in the g roup and he continued driving
. ¶ 15 As Fox stopped the vehicle a t the intersec tion, Padill a wa rned him that one me mber of the g roup wa s approa chingthe vehicle with a gun. Fox turned bac k to look and he obser ved
Detec tive Katz’s first name doe s not appea r in the appe llate re cord. 2 5No. 1-12-2333

defe ndant, whom he kne w from the ne ighbor hood, running toward the m and pointing a black handgun in the direc tion of the vehicle . The re st of the g roup, includingChristian Ramos and Z ay Russell, stood behind defenda nt and scre amed at him. Fox identified def endant in cour

t and explained that he knew de fenda nt from the Albany

Park neig hborhood. De fenda nt stopped for a moment and adjusted his handgun, while a jog g er c rossed the inter section, pre venting Fox from speedingawa

y . As the jog g er c rossed L awnda le Avenue , Fox drove throug h the intersec tion, and he obser ved def endant f ire four shots at the vehicle f

rom the distance of “a

bout a ca r’s leng th.” Nothing obstruc ted Fox’s view of de fenda nt, and he did not observe anyone else with a fire arm. I t was still day light at the time of the shooting, a

nd the windows on the pa sseng er side of the vehicle w ere rolled down. ¶ 16 Everyone that wa s prese nt in the park a t the time of the shooting, inc luding de fenda nt, ran
awa y afte r def endant f ired his handgun. Fox continued to drive aw ay from the inter section while Padilla called the police on her c ellular tele phone. The 911 operator told Padill a to re turn to the park, so F ox drove ba ck to the interse ction of L awnda le and Wilson Avenues, and the police
wer e alr eady

there when they

arr ived. Fox did not dis cuss the incident with Padilla and Corne h befor e they

returne d to the park be cause they wer e “still in shock.” F ox told the police what he observe d, and Padilla showed de fenda nt’s Fa cebook pa g e to a police office r to identify defe ndant’s last name
. ¶ 17 On cr oss-examination, Fox testified that he wa s never a “me mber” of the Simon Cit y Roy als stree t ga

ng , though he had bee n “af filiated” w ith the ga

ng in the past bec ause he was friends w ith ga

ng members. F ox testified that he did not re member te lling De tectives Kolman
6No. 1-12-2333

and Katz t hat he wa s a member of the Simon Cit y

Roy als g ang . Thoug h Fox denied a c urre nt g angaff iliation, he stated that Padilla was af filiated with the Simon Ci ty Roy als bec ause she associate d with members of the g ang . Fox did not di splay any g angsigns or

do any thing e lse to 3 instigate the eve nts, and J ensen Par k was c onsidered a

neutra l territory

for c hildren and w as not run by any particula r g ang . ¶ 18 Fox testified that he was lookingstraig ht ahea d when he hear d the first gunshot, but he looked bac k over his shoulder a nd observe d defe ndant fire the handgun in the direc tion of the minivan a sec ond and third time. Fox also describe d defe ndant as a iming the ha ndg un at the vehicle w ith one hand, not two as Padilla pre viously testified. Fox did not hear a ny bullets strike the vehicle
. ¶ 19 I I I . Ndey iah Corneh’ s Testimony ¶ 20 Ndey

iah Corneh testified that she is 15 y ear s old and is friends with Padilla. On June 14, 2011, Fox and Padilla picked up Corneh f rom J ensen Par

k, and she e ntere d the passeng er side of the vehicle and sat be hind Padilla. Fox t hen drove the vehicle south on L awnda le Avenue and slowed down be cause there was a vehicle in f

ront of them stopped at the stop sign at the Wilson Avenue intersec tion. Corneh noticed a group of pe ople walking south along the sidewa lk on the west side of L awnda le Avenue , and she r ecognized one member of the g roup as a

g irl named Corrinn that she knew

from school. As the vehic le stopped at the inter section, Padilla turned

4

The trial c ourt noted that it “did not know what to make ” of F ox ’s and Padilla’s 3 testimony conce rningg angmembership, and a s far as it pertaine d to the char g es that def endant fac ed, the issue of

who belong ed to what g angdid not “make a differ ence in the world.” Corrinn’s last name doe s not appea r in the appe llate re cord. 4 7No. 1-12-2333

around a nd stated that def

endant wa s one of the pe ople in the g roup. Corneh looke d back a nd observe d defe ndant at the inter section wa lking towa rds the vehic le holding a

handgun. Corneh knew de fenda

nt from ar ound the par

k, and she ide ntified him in court. ¶ 21 Fr om a distance of “a car ’s leng th apar

t,” def endant stood at the e nd of the sidewa lk with one foot in the stre et and r aised a handgun, aiming it at the ve hicle. The re w as nothing betwee n Corneh and de fenda

nt that obstructed her

view, and it wa s still daylight at the time. Corne h then ducked he r hea d down and he ard thre e or f our gunshots fired in quick succ ession. Fox drove from the inter section and Corne h did not raise her head until they

wer e nea r Sunny side Avenue , one city block south. Padilla called the police on her c ellular tele phone, and the y returne d to the park a s the police instructe d. Corneh identified he rself to a police off

icer , and Padilla told the police what had happe ned. ¶ 22 On cr oss-examination, Corneh testified that Padilla was pre viously aff iliated with the Simon C ity

Roy als and that she did not know if F ox was a member of

the g ang . No one in the vehicle displayed g angsigns or y elled out of the w indow to provoke a confr ontation with the g roup. ¶ 23 I V. J essica Palmer ’s Testimony ¶ 24 J essica Palmer

testified that she is 15 y ear s old, and on the eve ning of J une 14, 2011, she was play ing ba sketball with a g roup of f riends in J ensen Par

k, and neve r left the pa

rk prior to the shooting. Two of

Palmer’s fr iends, Corrine a nd Albert, we re pr esent in the pa rk that eve ning. 5

Neither Corrine nor A lbert’s last name appea rs in the appe llate re cord. The name 5 Corrine may

also have been e rrone ously transcribed as " Corrinn" elsewhe re in the r ecor d. 8No. 1-12-2333

Palmer wa s playing ba sketball when she hear d g unshots and she immediately ran towa rd L eland Avenue . Palmer stopped at the pa rk’s play g round and pic ked up her y oung er br other, Thomas, 6 and the two r an home. Prior to the shooting , there wer e dozens of people in the park, a nd Palmer only knew a fewof them. Palmer testified tha t she did not know defe ndant, and that she did not
reme mber if she observe d him in the park that eve ning. Palmer also did not remember

observing J err ell Russell in t he par

k that evening
. ¶ 25 The ne x t day , the police a rre sted Palmer at sc hool and took her to the 17th District police station where they

questioned her

about the shooting . After an hour, the police ca lled Palmer’s mother, who a

rrived at the police station and sat ne x t to Palmer while the police que stioned her further . After

war ds, an assistant State’s Attorne y interviewe d Palmer conc erning what she observe d prior to the shooting . Palmer fe lt threatene d and sca red, a nd she and he r mother we re cry ing, so Palmer

told the police a f

alse story . The police then wrote down what Palmer said and forc ed her

to sign the state ment. ¶ 26 In her or igina l signe d statement to the police, Palmer stated that, while she w as play ing basketba ll in J ensen Par

k on J une 14, 2011, she le ft the par k for a short time with her fr iend Corrine, a nd the two walke d to Corrine’s house, which was ne arby
. After Corrine c hecke d in 7 with her pa

rents, she a

nd Palmer wa lked bac k to J ensen Par k. When they

returne d, Palmer observe d her f

riend Albe rt speakingwith J err ell, and then the two w alked towa rds the baske tball court. Jerrell then pointed to a g old-colore d minivan and shouted, “The re the y g o, rig ht there.”
Thomas’s last name does not appe ar in the a ppellate r ecor d. 6 At this point , the trial cour t admonished Palmer for

her imprope r attitude in responding 7 to the assistant State’s Attorney ’s questions. 9No. 1-12-2333

Palmer then obser

ved a ma n, who she kne w from the pa rk, run towa

rd the minivan holding his waistband. Palmer lost sight of de fenda nt beca use there wer e par

ked vehic les on L awnda le 8 obstructing her vie w. Palmer then he ard thre e gunshots. At trial, Palmer claimed that she did not
reme mber makingany

of these sta

tements to the police or the assistant State’s Attorney , other than that she ha d hear d three g unshots. Her stateme nt concluded that, after the shots were fired,
ever y one in the par

k scatter ed and Palmer

picked up he r young er br other fr om the playg round and ra n home. ¶ 27 On cr oss-examination, P almer te stified that she had me t defe ndant prior to the shooting and that she ha d observe d him at J ensen Par k on prior occ asions. Palmer denie d knowing Z ay Russell, Christ ian Ramos, or Nde yiah Corneh. Palmer testified that Padilla had fought with her three or four

months prior to the shooting, and that she knew that Fox was Padilla’s boy friend. Palmer testified that she did not re member which direc tion she hear d the gunshots originate from, and that she did not remember exactly how many

shots were fired. Palmer

stated that she did not observe de fenda

nt, or anyone else , run towar d the minivan holding his wa istband. ¶ 28 Palmer explained that, the day afte r the shooting , she wa s arr ested at school and transporte d to the 17th District police station and plac ed alone in a holding c ell. Two hours late r, an unidentified of

fice r ente red the cell and grabbe d Palmer and thre atene d that she would g o to jail if she did not talk. Palmer did not verbally reply to the office r, and he then led Palmer out of the ce ll and into an interrog ation room, wher e anothe r unidentified of fice r joined him in
Palmer’s stateme nt orig inally named this individual as defe ndant, but at some point his 8 name wa s crossed out, a

nd Palmer’s initials appea r next to t he cor

rec tion. However , Palmer identified def

endant in a photog raph a s the man that she obse rved r unning towa

rds the minivan. 10No. 1-12-2333

threatening Palmer with jail if she did not speak. The office rs then lef t Palmer alone in the r oom for a nother two hours, until Palmer’s mother arr ived at the police station. Palmer’s mother enter ed the r oom and sat next to P almer, f ollowed shortly

afte rwa rd by a third unidentified police office r. The of

fice r then told Palmer that other witnesses had implicate d her in the shooting , and he questioned Palmer

about the eve nts leading up to the shooting. Palmer te stified that she then “made up a story” bec ause she believed that doing so would spar e her a trip to jail. Palmer was then forc ed to sig n a stateme nt that detailed a f alse a ccount of

the shooting, a

nd she wa s not g iven an oppor

tunity to rea d it. ¶ 29 V. Police Off icer J ohn Geisbush’s Te stimony ¶ 30 Offic er John Geisbush testified that he has be en a police office r for the Chicag o police depar tment for nine year s. On the eve ning of J une 14, 2011, Of

fice r Ge isbush was patrolling the
are a nea r Jensen Park in a mar

ked police ve hicle with his partner , Offic er Patric ia Ramirez. At 7:15 p.m., Geisbush and his partner rec eived a

radio dispatch that gunshots we re f ired in Jensen Park, and the y

drove to the inter section of L awnda le and Wilson. A few minutes af ter their
arr ival, a tan Kia

Sedona minivan drove up to the intersec tion and the occ upants exit ed and identified themselves a s J erma ine Fox, Amanda Padilla, and N deyiah Corneh. Ge isbush and his partne r first spoke w ith Padill a, who told them that she obser ved def endant f ire a handgun at the vehicle. G eisbush next s poke with Fox and Corneh c oncer ning the shooting. All three witnesses pointed out the northwest cor ner of the intersec tion as the place wher e def endant wa s standing when he shot at the vehicle . Geisbush walke d over to the a rea and obser

ved four spent shell

11No. 1-12-2333

casinglying in the stre et. Geisbush re cover ed the she ll casing s, place d them in a bag , and inventoried them. ¶ 31 After

speakingwith the three witnesses, Ge isbush sent out a flash messag e descr ibing the 9 suspect as a

black male , 5 fee t 7 inches and 130 pounds, na med “Sabe r,” a

nd wea ring a blac k hat, black shirt, and bla ck jea

ns. The messag e also de scribed thr ee othe r suspec ts that were in the g roup, includingJ err ell Russell, Christ ian Ramos, and Jessica Palmer. The flash messag e did not identify Z ay Russell as a suspect. At some point, Padilla voluntarily logg ed on to Fa cebook on her c ellular tele phone and looke d up defe ndant’s last name , which she pr ovided to Geisbush. ¶ 32 On cr oss-examination, Office r Ge isbush testified that his supervisor arr ived at the c rime
scene and orde red him to rec over the shell casing s instead of wa iting for an evide nce te chnician to do it. Geisbush survey ed the ve hicle and did not find a ny damag e fr om the shooting, a nd he and his partne r later

canva ssed the ar ea but did not find any proper ty damag e to nea

rby vehicles
or re sidence s or any

additional ey ewitnesses. ¶ 33 VI . Police Offic er Matthew Rog us’s Testimony ¶ 34 Offic er Matthew Rog us testified that he ha s been a Chicag o police off

icer for e ight year s. On J une 15, 2011, Of

fice r Rog us rea d a ca se re port at the 17th District police station conc erning the shooting in Jensen Park the pr evious day . Whil e re adingthe re port, Rogus r ecognized defe ndant from pr evious enc ounters in the 17th District, and he knew de fenda nt was a me mber of the Conservative Vice L ords g ang . Rogus a nd five other

office rs then drove to a building on

A flash messa g e is a broa dcast of updated information fr om the crime sc ene that is 9 transmitted to near

by police off

icer s. 12No. 1-12-2333

North Centra l Park Avenue wher e many Conservative V ice L ords wer e known to congreg ate. Rogus ha d previously

observe d defe ndant at the r esidenc e seve ral times prior to June 15, 2011, most rece ntly

within the past wee k. ¶ 35 When Rogus ar

rived at the location, he obse rved de fenda nt and J err ell Russell near the front of the building smoking cig are ttes. As Rogus a nd his team exit ed their ve hicles, def endant and Jerrell ra

n awa y from the of

fice rs to the bac k of the re sidence . Rogus yelled, “Stop, police,” and cha sed af

ter the suspe cts. Def

endant stopped ne ar the porch a nd was a rre sted, and Jerrell wa s
arr ested inside the building soon after war d. ¶ 36 On cr oss-examination, Rogus testified that the building wher e he a rre sted defe ndant was J err ell’s re sidence . Rogus a dmitted that he did not know for sure if defe ndant was a member of

a street g ang , but he base d his assumption t hat def endant wa s a Conservative Vice L ord on who he had obser ved def endant a ssociate with in the past. Rog us did not observe a ny g angtattoos on defe ndant’s body
. ¶ 37 After

Rogus’ testimony , the par ties stipulated that, if called to testify , Aimee Stevens would state that she is a f orensic sc ientist with t he I llinois State Police crime la b, and that she is an expert in fire arms identification. St evens w ould further testify that she ana ly

zed the four she ll casing s rec overe d from the c rime sce ne and opine d that they wer e all fire d from the same .380- caliber handgun. The State’s ne x t witness, ASA Robert Groe bner, w as unava ilable, so the trial court a llowed the def

ense to c all its first witness out of order.

13No. 1-12-2333

¶ 38 VI I . Christian Ramos’s Testimony ¶ 39 Christian Ramos testified that he is 20 y ear s old and that he kne w def endant f rom hig h school but he neve r obser ved def endant of f of sc hool gr ounds. Ramos had observe d Palmer in J ensen Par

k on occa sion, but he did not know her per sonally . Ramos met J err ell once or twice, but he did not know him very well. Ramos did not know who Corneh wa s. On J une 14, 2011, Ramos was attendingclass at Ha rry S. Truman Colleg e in Chicag o from 5:30 p.m. until 10 p.m., and he w as not in J ensen Par k that evening
. ¶ 40 Sometime afterw ard, the police stopped Ramos while wa s driving a nd told him t hat witnesses implicated him in the shooting at J ensen Par k on J une 14, 2011. Ramos was pla ced in custody and tra nsported to the police station where he explained to the offic ers that he was in school at the time of the shooting , and he w as re lease d five or six hours later. ¶ 41 On cr oss-examination, Ramos t estified that, prior to tria l, he initially told the assistant State’s Attorney

that he did not reme mber whe ther he was a rre sted in April 2011 or August 2011, but he ultimately

deduce d that the police a rre sted him on August 7, 2011, though he was not sure of the e x act date. Ramos also did not remember the date of

the shooting, but he knew that it
occur red on a Tuesday
. Ramos admitted that he was f ound delinquent as a

minor of unlawf

ul 1 0 use of a wea pon in either 2004 or 2005 a nd he re ceive d probation. Ramos was a lso found delinquent of a g g ravated batter y in 2008 and he wa s sentence d as a juve nile to the I llinois Depa rtment of Corre ctions.

The date of the shooting , J une 14, 2011, did in fac t fall on a Tue sday
. 1 0 14No. 1-12-2333

¶ 42 After

Ramos’s testimony , the State re sumed its case- in-chief and ca lled its final witness, ASA Bob G roebne r. ¶ 43 VI I I . ASA Bob Groebne r’s Te stimony ¶ 44 ASA Bob G roebne r testified that, on June 15, 2011, he was w orking in the felony revie w unit for the Cook County State’s Attorney , and his duties included intervie wing witnesses, victims, and defe ndants in criminal ca ses. That da y , Groe bner w as assig ned to interviewPalmer, who was ide ntified as a w itness to the J ensen Par k shooting the pr evious day . Groe bner dr ove to the 17th District police station and met with Palmer, who w as ac companied by her mother

in an interview r oom. Groebne r introduce d himself as a pr osecutor, a nd both Palmer and he r mother consente d to having a conve rsation with him concer ning the shooting. Af

ter a 20-minute discussion, Palmer ag ree d to provide a ha ndwritten statement memor ializi ng what she w itnessed at the par k. Groe bner a sked Palmer que stions about what she obser ved, and he summarized eac h of her answe rs in the statement. ¶ 45 After

the interview , Groe bner a sked Palmer a nd her mother

if they felt they had bee n treated fa irly

by the police, a

nd both responded yes. Palmer wa s a witness and w as neve r handcuf fed dur ing the interview. Palmer testified that her

statement wa s g iven fre ely and voluntarily

and that the police did not threaten he r or make any promises to her. In the pre sence of her mother, Palmer r ead the first pag e of he r statement out loud, and she signe d the pag e af ter aff irming that the information was a ccur ate. Gr oebner rea d the re st of the statement out loud, and Palmer cor

rec ted the stateme nt on pag e thre e, re questing that defe ndant’s first na me be c rossed out beca use Palmer did not know him by name a nd that she knew

him from observinghim
15No. 1-12-2333

around the park. G roebne r cr ossed out defe ndant’s first name, and Palmer , her mother , Groe bner, and De tective Ka

tz pl ace d their initials nex t to the corre ction. Palmer then sig ned ea ch pag e af ter acknow ledg ing that the statements containe d there in were acc urate . In addition, Groebne r, Palmer’s mother, a

nd Detec tive Katz signe d eac h individual pag e. Gr oebner did not force Palmer to sign the state ment. Groe bner ide ntified the handwritten statement in cour t and it was off

ere d into evidence without objection. ¶ 46 On cr oss-examination, Groebner testified that one of

the police r eports he r eviewe d prior to interviewingPalmer indicate d that witnesses obser ved Palmer standing

next t o the shooter, though Palmer

had bee n excluded as a suspe ct by the time Groe bner a

rrived a t the police station. Groe bner inter

viewed Russell and took a ha ndwritten statement f

rom Fox, but he did not speak 1 1 with Padilla, Corneh, Ramos or Palmer’s f riends, Alber

t and Corrinn. Palmer a

nd her mother appea red to have a “ normal” de meanor at the police station and did not appear to have be en cry ing. ¶ 47 After

Groe bner’ s testimony , the State re sted, and the tria l court denie d the def ense’ s motion for a dire cted f

inding. ¶ 48 I X. Dete ctive Thomas Kolman’ s Testimony ¶ 49 The de fense ’s sec ond witness was De tective Thoma s Kolman, who testified that he has been a Chicag o police off

icer for 18 year s. On J une 15, 2011, De tectives Kolman a nd Katz were assig ned to investig ate the pr evious day ’s shooting. D efe ndant, J err ell, and Palmer w ere alre ady in custody

when Kolman a

rrived at the 17th District police station. Kolman first re viewed the
Groe bner doe s not state whether he is ref err ing to Jerre ll Russ ell or his brother Z ay . 1 1 16No. 1-12-2333

police re ports conce rningthe shooting a nd then lear

ned that Padilla, Fox, and Corneh we re at the police station and we re a

vailable to be inter

viewed. K olman first spoke with Padilla, who stated that she obser

ved def endant, Russell, Ramos, and Palmer runningtoward the minivan just 1 2 befor e the shooting , and that F ox was a Simon C ity

Roy al g angmember at that time. Kolman next i nterview ed F ox , and he told Kolman that he also observe d defe ndant, Russell, Ramos, and Palmer runningtoward the minivan. Fox tol d Kolman that he wa s a Simon Ci ty Roy al g ang member in the pa st and still was a curr ent member of the g ang . Kolman did not interview Ramos, or either of Palmer’ s friends, Albe rt or Corrinn. Thoug h Kolman did not meet with Palmer, he observe d her in a

proce ssing r oom and noted that she w as not in handcuf fs and testified that she
was ne ver pla ced in a

holding c ell. ¶ 50 Kolman and Katz recanva ssed the ar ea ne ar the crime sc ene on June 16, 2011, and they did not locate any

additional witnesses or discove r prope rty damag e to nea

rby vehicles or residenc es as a

result of the shooting . Kolman did not perfor m a gunshot residue test on defe ndant to deter

mine if he ha d rec ently

fired a handgun beca

use too much time had pa ssed since the shooting . Also, Kolman explained that the shell casing s were not sent to the I llinois State Police crime la

b for f inge rprint ana ly sis because he is not allowed to do that. ¶ 51 On cr oss-examination, Kolman testified that he did not prese nt a photo arr ay or phy sical lineup to the victims because all three stated that they persona lly

knew de fenda

nt.

Kolman does not state whe ther Padilla wa s ref err ing to Jerre ll Russ ell or his brother 1 2 Z ay . 17No. 1-12-2333

¶ 52 FollowingKolman’s testimony , the par ties stipulated that Z ay

Russell was in the custody of the I llinois Depa

rtment of Corre ctions on J une 14, 2011. De fenda nt exercised his rig ht not to testify , and the de fense rested. ¶ 53 Duringclosing arguments, the State arg ued that def

endant e scalated the fe ud betwee n the rival g ang s when he fired f our shots at the vehic le and that the w itnesses wer e cr edible bec ause: (1) they had no bias towa

rd def endant pe rsonally ; (2) they had little time to fabricate a story afte r the shooting; a

nd (3) their

testimony

was c orrobor ated by

Palmer, who initially

told the police that she obser

ved def endant r un toward the vehicle shor tly befor e she he ard gunshots. The State claimed that the vic tims’ testim ony was fur ther c orrobor ated by

the re cover

y of four shell casing s at the interse ction and that ther e wa s no damag e discove red be cause defe ndant had poor aim. ¶ 54 The de fense argued that the State f ailed to prove defe ndant guilty beyond a re asonable doubt beca

use F ox ’s and Padilla’s g angaff iliations showed that they had a motive to lie about the shooting. The ir cre dibilit y was fur ther c halleng ed by

the fa ct that they

both testified that Ramos and Z ay

Russell were in the group with defe ndant, but Ramos testified that he wa s in school at the time, and the parties stipulated that Z ay was inca rnate d during the shooting. The defe nse cla imed that the y oung er Corne h was “ playing f ollow the leade r” by

chang ing he r story to fit whateve r F ox and Padilla said, and the defe nse noted that she did not testify that she actua lly observe d defe ndant fire the handgun. Fur ther, the de fense argued that Palmer r eca nted her sig ned stateme nt beca use the police threatened he r with jail. The def ense a lso claimed that there was no phy sical evide nce that corrobor ated the vic tims’ testim ony beca use: (1) no ha

ndg un
was re cover ed; (2) the re w as no gunshot residue test per formed; a nd (3) ther e we re no
18No. 1-12-2333

fing erpr ints or DNA linking de fenda nt to the crime. The defe nse conc luded that there would have been da mag e to the vehic le had de fenda nt shot at it from such a close distance. ¶ 55 After

closing arguments, the trial cour t stated that it assessed the c redibility and deme anor of the witnesse s, and that it relied on e ach w itness’s cre dibilit y . The trial c ourt deter mined that Fox and Padilla were cre dible, and that Corneh w as the most reliable witness, reje cting the claim that she fa

bricated her

story to fit Fox’s and Padilla’s acc ounts of the eve nts. The trial cour t discredited Palmer ’s testimony and found that she was “ an aw ful witness” who told “a bsurd, ridiculous lies” in her te stimony to “g et out from under

the statements that she ma de ea rlier.” The trial court noted that ASA Groebne r’s testimony indicated that Palmer

had lied in cour

t. The trial court a lso determined that Ramos lied about be ing in sc hool, finding that he “ha s no idea what happene d, he has no ide a whe n it happened, but knows that he has a n alibi for it.” The trial court conclude d that there was “ no doubt” that def endant f ired a handgun at the vehic le, and it found defe ndant guilty

of all four

counts of ag g ravated dischar g e of a firea rm. Howe ver, the trial court found def endant not guilty

on the three counts of attempted mur der, e x plaining that the State did not meet the hig h burden of proof to esta

blish the specific me ntal state and intent. ¶ 56 The de fense filed a posttrial motion for a new tria l, claiming that the State did not prove that defe ndant fire d the handgun in the direc tion of the vehicle beca use there was no e vidence of any damag e to the vehic le or to nea rby proper ty . The trial c ourt denied the motion and stated that it would not rewar d defe ndant for not be ing “ a better shot.” ¶ 57 The trial c ourt held a se ntencinghear ing, a nd afte r hea

ring fac tors in ag g ravation and mitigation, it sentence d defe ndant to seven year s in the I llinois Depa rtment of Corre ctions, with
19No. 1-12-2333

400 day s cre dit for time serve d, 2 y ear s' mandatory supervised r elea se, and $714 in mandatory fines, fe es, and c osts. Defe ndant appe als his conviction and sente nce. ¶ 58 ANALYSI S ¶ 59 On appe al, def

endant a rgues that the State did not prove him guilty beyond a re asonable doubt beca

use F ox and Padilla ar e biase d witnesses since the y are aff iliated with a rival stre et g ang . Def endant a lso points t o inconsistencies in F ox ’s and Padilla’s testimony to argue that they
are not cre dible, such as the misidentification of Ramos and Russell at the scene of the c rime. Def endant a lso arg

ues that Corneh’ s testimony alone is not sufficie nt to affirm the c onviction beca use she testified tha

t she did not actually

observe defe ndant fire the handgun. Additionally , defe ndant claims that there is no phy sical evide nce tha t links defendant to the c rime. F or the following rea sons, we find the e vidence sufficie nt for a f inding of g uilty of ag g ravated dischar g e of a f irea rm, and we aff

irm. ¶ 60 I . Standard of Re view ¶ 61 When a def

endant c halleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence , the standar d of re view is “ < whether , afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fac t could have f

ound the essential e lements of the c rime beyond a re asonable doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in orig inal.) People v. Cunning ham, 212 I ll. 2d 274, 278 (2004) (quoting J ackson v. Virg inia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). “ Under this standard, the re viewingcourt doe s not retry the defe ndant, and the tr ier of f act r emains re sponsible for makingdeter minations reg ardingthe
cre dibilit y

of witnesses, the w eig ht to be g iven their testimony , and the r easona ble infer ence s to be dra wn from the e vidence .” People v. Ross, 229 I ll. 2d 255, 272 (2008). “[T]he fact f inder’s
20No. 1-12-2333

decision to ac cept testimony is entitled to gre at def

ere nce but is not conc lusive and does not bind the re viewingcourt.” Cunningham, 212 I ll. 2d at 280. “[A] revie wing court will not reve rse a criminal convic tion unless the evidence is so unreasona ble, improbable or

unsatisfac tory

as to
cre ate a rea sonable doubt of the de fenda nt’s g uilt.” People v. Rowell, 229 I ll. 2d 82, 98 (2008); People v. McGe e, 398 I ll. App. 3d 789, 793 (2010). ¶ 62 In a benc h trial, the trial judg e has the responsibility to determine the cre dibilit y of witnesses, to weig h evidenc e and dr aw r easona ble infer ence s theref

rom, and to re solve any conflicts in the evide nce. People v. Spann, 332 I ll. App. 3d 425, 445 (2002) (c iting People v. Slim , 127 I ll. 2d 302, 307 (1989)). A r eviewingcourt must g ive the State the be nefit of a ll
rea sonable infe renc es. People v. Wheele r, 226 I ll. 2d 92, 116-17 (2007) (quotingCunningham, 212 I ll. 2d at 280). The e vidence of a sing le witness is sufficient to convic t if the witness is found to be cr edible. People v. Smith, 185 I ll. 2d 532, 541 (1992). Testimony may be found insuff

icient to convict only

wher e the r ecor d evidenc e compe ls the conclusion that no re asonable person could ac cept it beyond a re asonable doubt. Cunningham, 212 I ll. 2d at 280. ¶ 63 I I . Sufficienc y of the Evidenc e ¶ 64 Def

endant a rgues that the State’s e vidence was insuffic ient to convict him of ag g ravated discharg e of a

firea rm. “A pe rson commits ag g ravated dischar g e of a firea rm when he or she knowing ly

or intentionally

*** [d] ischarg es a f

irea rm in the direc tion of another pe rson or in the direc tion of a vehic le he or she knows or r easona

bly should know to be occ upied by a per son.” 720 I L CS 5/ 24-1.2(a )(2) (West 2008); People v. Har din, 2012 I LApp (1st) 100682, ¶ 28. An essential ele ment to ag g ravated dischar g e of a firea rm is the defe ndant’s aw are ness of the
21No. 1-12-2333

prese nce of

an individual in the direc tion in which he fire s a we apon. People v. Ka sp, 352 I ll. App. 3d 180, 187-88 (2004) . Howeve r, it is not an inherent e lement of the of fense that the bullets actua lly strike the vehic le or that the bullets strike ne ar a window of the ve hicle. People v. Ellis, 401 I ll. App. 3d 727, 731 (2010). ¶ 65 In the ca se at ba

r, the State prove d defe ndant guilty of ag g ravated dischar g e of a firea rm beyond a re asonable doubt, where Padilla, Fox, and Corneh all testified that def endant stood at the intersec tion of L awnda le and Wilson Avenues, aimed a handgun at their ve hicle, and f ired four shots. Fox in particular stated that he obse rved the handgun discharg e whe n defe ndant fire d the sec ond and third shots, and that def endant wa s aiming a

t their vehicle as he f

ired his gun. The lightingat the interse ction was suff icient, wher e ther e wa s still daylight, the ve hicle’s windows
wer e rolled down, and ther e wa s nothing obstruc ting the w itnesses’ view of defe ndant. All three ey ewitnesses w ere able to identify defe ndant since the y

knew him per sonally

befor e the shooting
. Their testimony

was a lso corrobor ated by phy sical evide nce, sinc e Of fice r Ge isbush testified that he re cover ed four

shell casing s ly ing in the nor thwest corne r of the inter section, and the parties stipulated that fore nsic scientist Stevens tested the shell ca sings a nd found that they

wer e fire d from the same handgun. The trial c ourt assesse d the cr edibility and deme anor of

the witnesses and found that the three ey ewitnesses w ere cre dible. Ross, 229 I ll. 2d at 272. We cannot say that the evidenc e is so unrea sonable, improbable , or unsatisfac tory as to cre ate a

rea sonable doubt of the def endant’ s g uilt. R owell, 229 I ll. 2d at 98. ¶ 66 Def

endant a rgues that F ox and Padilla wer e biase d witnesses bec ause the y wer e associate d with a stree t ga ng hostile to defenda

nt’s g angand thus wer e motivated to lie at trial to
22No. 1-12-2333

incriminate de fenda

nt. Defe ndant claims that the trial r ecor d shows that Fox and Padilla fabr icated the ir testimony beca use they both identified Christian Ramos and Z ay Russell as prese nt in the park on the nig ht of the shooting, de spite Ramos’s conflictingtestimony that he was in school that eve ning, a nd the par ties’ stipulation that Rus sell was alr eady in custody

for a n unrelated offe nse. ¶ 67 As the trial cour

t stated, the issue of g angassociation wa s an “a morphous” conc ept that was diff icult to delineate in the c ase at bar. At trial, F ox and Padilla testified that F ox was onc e aff iliated with the Simon C ity Roy als but he ce ased ties with that g angsometime befor e the shooting. How ever , both witnesses denied a ny curr ent involvement in a stree t ga ng , and Corneh testified that Padilla curr ently aff iliated herse lf with the Roy als bec ause she “hungout” with members of

that g ang . Ba sed on this evidence , we c annot say that Fox and Padilla had a c lear motive to lie because neither e x presse d any curr ent associa

tion with a street g ang . Thoug h Corneh explained that Padilla was fr iends with members of the Roy als, this friendship does not demonstrate that she was then motivated to f alsely acc use a r ival g ang

member of

committing a crime. This wa s espec ially true of de fenda

nt, whom Padilla admitted that she felt no animosity toward. The trial court state d that it did not know “what to make” of the diff eringacc ounts of the ey ewitnesses’ connec tion to gang s, and that the issue ultimately did not matter in its finding that Fox, Padill a, and Corne h wer e all cr edible. We ca nnot say that the re cord e vidence compels the conclusion that no re asonable person c ould acc ept their testimony beyond a re asonable doubt. Cunningham, 212 I ll. 2d at 280.

23No. 1-12-2333

¶ 68 Even if we found that F ox and Padilla held a pe rsonal bias a g ainst defe ndant’s g angand had a motive to lie, we cannot sa y that their identification of Ramos and Russell at the crime
scene proves that their

stories wer e fa

bricated. Thoug h Ramos testified that he wa s in school duringthe shooting, he did not remember when the shootingoccur red or when he was a

rre sted. The trial c ourt found that Ramos was not a cre dible witness, noting that Ramos initially could not
rec all if he wa s arr ested in April or Aug ust, and that he insisted that he wa s in school during the shooting e ven thoug h he did not reme mber whe n the shooting oc curr ed. Also, the misidentification of Z ay

Russell is a minor discrepanc y in light of the totality

of F ox ’s and Padilla’s testimony , and the tria l court we ighe d the inconsistencies a nd deter mined that Fox and Padilla were cre dible. Spann, 332 I ll. App. 3d at 445. ¶ 69 Fur

thermore , Fox’s and Padilla’s ac counts of the shootingwer e cor robora ted by Corneh, who was not a ssociated with a stre et g angin any way . As stated, the testimony of a sing le ey ewitness is sufficie nt to sustain a conviction. Smit h, 185 I ll. 2d at 541. The trial cour t spoke in g lowing te rms about Corneh a nd found that she wa s the most credible w itness, and it rejec ted defe ndant’s ar g ument that she wa s playing “ follow the lea der” to match her story with Fox’s and Padilla’s acc ount of the shooting. T here is nothing in the re cord to sug g est that Corneh wa s not a
cre dible witness, and we cannot sa y that no rea sonable pe rson would ac cept he r testimony beyond a re asonable doubt. Cunningham, 212 I ll. 2d at 280. ¶ 70 Reg ardle ss of whethe r Corneh ha d a motive to lie, defe ndant ar g ues that her testimony alone is not sufficie nt to support his conviction because she testified that she did not ac tually observe defe ndant fire the handgun. In support, defe ndant cites People v. H artfie ld, 266 I ll. App.
24No. 1-12-2333

3d 607, 608-09 (1994) , which found that the evidenc e wa s insufficient to sustain the def endant’ s conviction bec ause a

n ey ewitness hea

rd gunshots but never a ctually observe d the def

endant f ire the g un. ¶ 71 Howeve r, the State’s e vidence was suff icient to support a convic tion here be cause Fox testified that he a ctually

observe d defe ndant firingthe handg un somewher e betwe en the se cond and third shots. Moreove r, a tria l court may drawrea sonable infe renc es fr om the evidenc e. He re, Padilla testified that she obser ved def endant a iming a ha

ndg un at their ve hicle and that she turned to fac e for

war d and hea

rd four g unshots. L ikewise, Corne h observe d defe ndant aiming the gun at their vehic le bef

ore she ducked down and hea rd four g unshots. Though Padilla a nd Corneh did not actually

observe the handgun fire, a rea sonable infe renc e may be dra wn that def

endant wa s still aiming the handgun at the vehic le when he fired the four shots shortly afte r the witnesse s turned a way . Wheeler, 226 I ll. 2d at 116-17. ¶ 72 Also, Hartf

ield is disti nguishable bec ause, in that c ase, the fac t that nobody testified that they observe d the def

endant f ire the g un was c rucia l since the State fa iled to present a ny evidenc e whatsoeve r that the de fenda nt aimed his wea

pon at a pe rson. Har

tfield, 266 I ll. App. 3d at 609. In the instant case , three ey ewitnesses te stified that defe ndant aimed a handgun at their ve hicle, from which a

rea sonable infe renc e could be drawn that defe ndant did not chang e his aim in the short time betwee n which the witnesse s looked awa y and hea rd the gunshots. Spann, 332 I ll. App. 3d at 445. ¶ 73 Def

endant a dditionally

arg ues that the only

ey ewitness that wa s not also a victim, J essica Palmer, re cante d her pr ior signe d statement and te stified that she did not observe the shooting.
25No. 1-12-2333

Def endant c ompare s the ca se at ba r to People v. B rown, 303 I ll. App. 3d 949, 965 (1999), whe re
we r ever sed the de fenda

nt’s murder a

nd attempted murde r convic tions because the sole ey ewitness re cante d his prior statement at tria l. Defe ndant also cites People v. Par ker, 234 I ll. App. 3d 273, 280 (1992), where the def endant’ s convictions of murder , arme d violence, attempted murde r, and a g g ravated batter y wer e re verse d beca

use three eyewitnesses r eca nted their prior state ments that impli cate d the def endant. ¶ 74 Howeve r, the trial c ourt found that Palmer w as not a c redible w itness and that she ha d lied at trial to “g et out from stateme nts that she made e arlier .” See Spann, 332 I ll. App. 3d at 445. Also, Br own and Par

ker a re disting uishable bec ause, in those c ases, ther e wa s no additional incriminating evidenc e aside from the r eca nted testimony . In Br own, testimony from two of the three ey ewitnesses w as found to be ina dmissibl e hea rsay , and the third e y ewitness re cante d his prior stateme nt at trial. Br own, 303 I ll. App. 3d at 962. On appe al, we r ever sed the de fenda nt’s conviction, findingthat there was no e vidence to support the defe ndant’s guilt other than a sing le witness’s re cante d statement. B rown, 303 I ll. App. 3d at 965-66. L ikewise in Parke r, the defe ndant’s convic tions were r ever sed bec ause the only evidenc e that incr iminated the def endant was the pr ior statements of thre e eyewitnesses that were rec anted at trial. Parker , 234 I ll. App. 3d at 280. We found that the “ lack of cre dible ey ewitness testimony in favor of

the State, combined with the complete a

bsence of any

phy sical evide nce ty

ing de fenda

nt to the crime,” prompted us to find that the evidenc e pre sented wa s insufficient to sustain the def endant' s convictions. Parker , 234 I ll. App. 3d at 280. Our ra tionale in Br own and Par

ker is not applica

ble to the instant case

26No. 1-12-2333

beca use, her e, ther e is additional ey ewitness testimony and phy sical evide nce suf ficient to convict def

endant a bsent Palmer’s r eca

nted prior state ment. ¶ 75 Def

endant a lso claims that his conviction should be reve rsed be cause there is no phy sical evidenc e linking him to the cr ime. Def endant notes that the police did not find a gun or other incriminating evidenc e on def endant’ s person or at the place of the a rre st, and that the police did not test defenda

nt for gunshot residue or f or fing erpr ints on the shell casing s. ¶ 76 Howeve r, since the trial court f ound that Fox, Padill a, and Corne h wer e cr edible and the ir testimony sufficie nt to convict defe ndant, the State wa s not require d to present a dditional phy sical evide nce tha

t linked defe ndant to the shooting to prove defe ndant’s guilt bey ond a
rea sonable doubt. People v. Ga nter, 56 I ll. App. 3d 316, 321 (1977). This ar g ument is simi lar to the ar g ument made in Ga nter, whe re the defe ndant cha lleng ed his murder and ar med robbe ry convictions arguing that the evidenc e ag ainst him was insufficient be cause the State did not prese nt the murder w eapon, f inge rprint evidenc e, or a

ny other e vidence that the def endant f ired the bullets at the victim. Ganter , 56 I ll. App. 3d at 324. We affir med the def

endant’ s conviction beca use there was c redible e y ewitness testimony that was suff

icient to convict the de fenda nt. Ganter , 56 I ll. App. 3d at 324. L ikewise, in the instant ca se, the State pre sented c redible ey ewitness testimony

from F ox , Padilla, and Corneh, a ll of whom testified that they observe d defe ndant aim a ha

ndg un at their ve hicle and f ire four shots. Though this evidenc e alone is sufficie nt to convict defe ndant of a g g ravated dischar g e of a firea rm, the testimony

was
corr oborate d by

phy sical evide nce be cause , at the sce ne of the crime, O ffice r Ge isbush recove red four she ll casing s, all of which f orensic sc ientist S tevens opined w ere fired f rom the same gun.
27No. 1-12-2333

Thus, the State in the ca se at ba r wa s not require d to present a dditional phy sical evide nce to convict def

endant. Ga

nter, 56 I ll. App. 3d at 324. ¶ 77 Fur

ther, de fenda

nt claims that since the police did not find any proper ty damag e to vehicles or

near by residenc es, it shows that defe ndant did not aim at the vehicle beca use, eve n if defe ndant wer e a “ bad shot,” ther e would have been some damag e fr om a shooting at such a close ra ng e. De fenda

nt states, without citation to authority , that damag e is an important fa ctor in deter mining in which dire ction the handg un was fir ed, eve n if it is not an element to the cr ime of ag g rava ted dischar g e of a

firea rm. ¶ 78 As previously

stated, to sustain a convic tion, the evidence must show that defenda nt knowing ly

or intentionally

fired the g un in the direc tion of another pe rson or in the dire ction of
an occ upied vehicle (720 I L CS 5/ 24-1.2(a )(2) (West 2008)), and the State need not pr ove that the bullets actually

struck the ve hicle or tha

t the bullets struck nea

r a w indow of the ve hicle. Ellis, 401 I ll. App. 3d at 731. Poor marksmanship is not an aff irmative def

ense, a nd it is a question of fac t for the f

act f inder to dete rmine whe ther de fenda nt lacked the intent to shoot t he vehic le or whether he wa s simply

unskilled with his weapon and missed his targ ets. People v. Tea g ue, 2013 I LApp (1st) 110349, ¶ 27 ( citing People v. Gre en, 339 I ll. App. 3d 443, 451 (2003), and People v. J ohnson, 331 I ll. App. 3d 239, 250-51 (2002)) . Whil e def endant may

arg ue that his failure to hit the vehicle supporte d an infe renc e that he did not aim at the ve hicle, the tria l court wa s fre e to reje ct that ar g ument and to dra w instead the infe renc e that def endant wa s simply

an unskilled shooter. Te ague, 2013 I LApp (1st) 110349, ¶ 29. T he trial c ourt found def endant wa s a “ba d shot,” and we will not subst itute our judg ment for the judg ment of the fa ct finder on appea l.
28No. 1-12-2333

People v. J ackson, 232 I ll. 2d 246, 280-81 (2009) (when a de fenda nt challeng es the suff

iciency of the e vidence on appea l, the revie wing court will not “substitute its j udg ment for that of the fa ct finder” ). ¶ 79 CONCL USI ON ¶ 80 For

the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm defe ndant’s convic tion and sentenc e. ¶ 81 Affir

med.

29