1 We note that def endant has not filed a reply brief with this co

urt. THIRD DIVISION

Novem ber 10, 2009

No. 1-08- 0015 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l ee, ) Cook Coun ty. ) v. ) ) EFREN AGUILAR, ) Ho no r ab le ) Stanley

Sacks, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CEQUIN

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llo win g a jur y t r ial, de fen da nt , E fr en Ag uila r , wa s fo un d g uilt y o f fir st de gr ee mur de rin the shoo ting death of Brandon McClel lan d. The t rial

cour t sentenced defendant to 50 years’ impriso nment– 25 yea rs o n t he first deg re e mur der co nvictio n and a n add itio nal 25 yea rs fo r u sing a f i rea rm dur i ng the of f ense . The tri

al cou rt de ni ed de f en da nt’ s m oti on f or a judg men t of acqui tt al notwithstandi

ng the verdict or a new trial and h is motion to reconside

r the sentence. On appeal, defendan

t arg ues that the tr ial

cour t err ed in

excl uding testim

ony f rom an ey ewitness ide ntif ic ation ex pert and in

adm ittin g evi dence of defen dant’s other crim

es. He al so contends that the Stat e fai

le d to prove hi

m gui lty bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt and that the trial c ourt ’s sen tence of 50 y ears was ex

cessi ve, gi ven that he i s onl

y 20 y ears old. 1 For the reasons set forth bel ow, we fi nd no revers ible

error and aff

irm defen dant’s conv

iction and s entence.1-08-0015

-2- I. BACKG

ROUND On Ma y 29, 200 4, at app ro ximately 10: 30 p .m. , 1 8- year- old Bra ndo n McClelland a nd t hr ee fr ien ds we r e s it t ing in Be ss eme rPa rk, lo ca t ed at 89 t h S t r ee t an d S o ut h C hic ag o Ave nu e in Chi cago, Illin ois, whe n a y oung ma n rode up on a bi

ke and aske d, “Wh

at y’al l i s?” wh ic h the m en to ok t o mean , “Wh

at gang are y

ou in? ” Some of the m

en responded that they

were not in a

gang, and the m an on the b ike

pull ed a gun f rom his wai stband an

d began shooting. McCl

ella nd was struck in the back b

y a bul le t and la ter died at the hospi

tal. Wi thin 24 hours of the sh

oot in g, two o f Mc Cle lland ’s fr ien ds , wh o we r e w it h him in t he pa rk, ide nt ified de fen da nt as t he sho o t er fr o m a ph o t o lineu p. T he t hir d w it ne ss als o pic ke d d efe nd an t o ut as t he sho o t er , bu t st at ed t ha t he wo uld
ne ed to se e h i m i n p ers on to b e sure . Im

medi ate l y af ter th e shooti ng , Ch i cago pol i ceof f i cer L ou Toth , w h om wa s a ss i gn

ed to th e a re a th at i n cl uded Be ss em er Pa rk , re ce i v ed a rad i o disp atch

wi th a descri ption of the sh

oot er. Sinc e the def

endan t, whom Tot h kne

w prior to t he sh

oot in g, matc hed t hat des cr ipt ion, he and ot her po lice officer s sea rc hed fo r d efenda nt at his home a nd t he
ne igh bo rho o d a r o un d B es se mer Pa rk, t o no av ail. An a rr es t wa rr an t wa s is su ed fo rde fen da nt in Dec ember 2 004 . T he po lice co nt inued, wit hou t suc ces s, t o lo ok for defend ant in subseq uent
m onths
. On A pril 25, 2006, defenda

nt was pul

le d over by

the Chi cago poli ce for dri

vi ng wi thout he ad ligh t s, t wo blo ck s fr o m t he sc en e o f t he sho o t ing
. Whe n t he po lice as ke d d efe nd an t his name, he st at ed t hat it w as “Jo se Che vez. ” Aft er t he po lice not iced a gun o n t he floo rbo ar d o f the
ca r, d ef en da nt f l ed i n h i s c ar a t a h i gh rate of sp ee d un ti l the ca r crashe d. D ef

en da nt th en f l ed on foot and, according to the pursuin g police off

ic er, pointed a gun at the off ic er, although n

o gun1-08-0015

-3-

wa s fo un d w he n d efe nd an t wa s a pp r eh en de d. Aft er be ing pla ce d in cu st o dy, de fen da nt ag ain t o ld t he po lice t ha t his n ame wa s “J o se Ch ev ez ”; ho we ve r , t he po lice de t er mined t ha t his r ea l na me was “Efre n Aguilar ” fo r w hom an a rr est war ra nt had be en issue d in co nnect ion wit h t he sho ot ing death of McCl

ella nd. Def endan t was place d under arrest, and the poli ce asked the three ey ewi tnesses to vi ew a phy

si cal li neup that i

ncl uded defe ndan t. All three iden

tif ie d defen dant as the p erson

who shot Mc Clel

l and. By in dictment, the State charged the defen dant wi th two counts of fi

rst degree murder (7 20 I LCS 5/ 9- 1( a) (1 ), (a )( 2) (Wes t 200 6) ), alleging t hat on M ay 29, 200 4, defend ant sho t and kil le d McClella

nd an d that during the com

mi ssion of the off

ense, def endan t personall

y di scharged a f i rearm that prox i matel y caus ed M cCl

el l and’s death
. Because the ev

ide nce at trial

would rest prim

aril y on the testim ony of the three eyewit nesse s, p rio r t o t rial de fendant fil ed a mot ion in limine re qu esti n g th at h e b e a l l owe d to int r o du ce t es t imo ny fr o m Ge o ffr ey L o ft us , a p syc ho lo gis t , wh o wo uld t es t ify abo ut sc ien t ific
res ea rch con cerni ng the pa ss ag e of

ti me b etw een th

e i nc i de nt a nd the i de nti f i ca ti on, the l ac k of
correl ati on b etw een th

e c erta i nty wi th w hi ch a w i tne ss makesan i de nti f i ca ti on a nd the va l i di ty of t hat ident ifi

cat ion, and t he effect of st re ss o n t he wit ness a nd we apo n foc us. Att ache d t o t he motion was an exh

ib it prepared by Loftus, more specifi call y outli ni ng 10 to pics h

e would address i n h i s testi mony . Afte r a hear ing, t he t rial co ur t denied t he mot ion. Relying on t he ho ldings in Peo ple v. E nis , 139 Il

l . 2d 264 (1990 ), People v . Tisdel, 316 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 43 (20 00) ( T isd el I ), and Pe o ple v. Tis del , 338 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 46 5 (200 3) ( Ti sde l

II ), the c ourt state d that a tri al j udg e h asdi screti on1-08-0015

-4-

to all ow or exc l

ude e yewi tnes s iden tif i cation ex pert testi mony . The

court f ound th at ex pert t est imony on t he issue of e yewitne ss ident ifi cat ion is mor e likely to co nfuse r at her t han as sist t he jury, t hat per mitt ing t he t est imony wo uld likely tu rn t he ca se int o a bat t le of exp er t s wit h t he jurors choosi

ng the ex pert t hey li ked better, and that t he j ury i nstructions adequatel

y a ddressed the issue by

listing f acto rs the juror s should consider in assess in g the reliab il

ity of eyewi tness i den tif i cation testi

mony . De f en da n t f i l ed a m oti on to re con si der the r ul i n g. I n addi ti on to re sta ti n g th e a rgum en ts f rom the ea rl i er m oti on, de f en da nt a rgued tha t pur suan t to People v . Alle

n , 376 Ill . App. 3d 511 (2 007 ), which wa s issue d sho rt ly before t he co ur t denied t he mot ion in limine, Lo ftu s sho uld be per mitt ed t o t est ify. I n Al le n , this court held that t he trial court erred in

refusi ng to permi

t an ey ewi tness i dentif ic ation ex pert t o t estif

y. Howeve

r, as the trial

court noted, t he Al

le n de ci si on wa s b as ed

on a f i nd i ng tha t the tri al cou rt f ai l ed to con duc t an y ki nd of mea ni ng f ul eval ua ti on of the expe rt wi tnes s’ s testi

mony . Al le n , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 526. Theref

ore, foll owing Al le n , t he t rial co ur t evalua t ed L oft us’s pr offer ed t est imony in l ight of t he fact s and circu msta nces of t he in stant case and f

ound that it was ei

ther not relevan

t, was addressed by

jury in structions or was spe cul ati ve and woul d not as si st the jury . As

a res ul t, the court de

ni ed th e m otion to recons i der. The St at e also fil

ed a pr et rial mot ion in limine re que st ing t hat evidenc e o f ot her cr imes be ad m i tted to s how consc i ous ne ss

of gui l t, f l i gh t, i de nti ty of the de f en da nt, an d the c i rcu m sta nc esof t he ar re st . I n par t icular , t he St at e wa nt ed t o s how t hat defend ant ’s mot her and br ot her knew t he police were looking f

or him and that on the date he was pul le d over, the defen

dant gave the polic e a f al se n am e, f l ed th e sc ene, an

d poi nted a gun at the p oli

ce. Af ter a heari ng, th e tri al court1-08-0015

-5-

gr ant ed t he mot ion, finding tha t evidenc e o f defend ant ’s flight fr om t he po lice was r elevant and adm is si ble as evi dence of defen dant’s consci

ousness of

guil t, but reserved for a la

ter dat e a deci sion on precisel

y wh at evi den

ce the State coul

d i ntroduc e rega

rdi ng th e arre st. A t tri al , th e th

ree ey ew i tne ss eswh

o were w i th McC l el l an d on the ni gh t he wa s shot testi f i ed. F i rst, Dom i ni que B ry son tes

tif i ed th at on Ma

y 29, 200 4, at approxi

matel y 10:30 p.m ., he, McClelland, Do mini

c Pe t t is, and Philli

p Villarr eal we re sitt ing in Besse mer P ar k t alking and sh ari n g on e “ b l un t” of mari j ua n a w h en th ey wereappr oach ed

b y a m an on a b i ke . Acc ordi

n g to Brys on, the man

cam e wi thin seven or eight f eet of them, dropped his bi ke and aske d them “

Wh at y ’a l l i s? ” w hi ch Bry son took to m

ea n, “ W ha t ga ng are you i n?” B ryson

coul d n ot rec al l i f an y of the four m

en responded to the question. Bryson sai d that t he m

an repeated the questi on and at the sam e tim e, pull ed a gun f rom his wai st. Bryson sai d that upon seein

g the gun, al

l f our men turned and ran i

n diff erent directions. Brys on testifi ed that he heard si

x to eight guns

hots and that he r an t o his c ar , wh ich wa s p ar ke d n ea r by, an d d r o ve o ff. Br yso n t r ied ca lling M cC lella nd ’s ce ll phone sev

eral ti me s. Vil la rreal ev entually answered an

d to ld B rys on that McCle ll and h ad been sho t . B ryso n t est ifi

ed t hat aft er st op ping at a friend ’s ho use , he went home a nd wr ot e do wn a descri ption of the sh

oot er so that he could tell the police. Brys on’s wri tt en descri

ption stated that the shooter was Latino, 5 fee t 9 inch es to 5 feet 10 in

ches 150 to 170 pounds, 15 to 17 ye ars old, wi th a sha ve d he ad an

d a pon y tai l , and wea

ri ng a red shi rt wi th da rk pan ts. The nex t day, Bryson went wi

th hi s parents to t he polic e station, expl ai ned wh at happened and gav e the poli ce his wri tt en descri

ption of the sh

oot er. The police asked Bry son to view a photo l i ne up. Bry son vi ew ed the photos a nd i de nti f i ed de f en da nt a s th e p ers on w

ho s hot1-08-0015

-6-

McClella nd an d pla ced his si gnature nex

t t o defenda

nt’s photo. On May

18, 2006, Bryson was ask ed to return

to the poli ce station

to vi ew a l

i ne up. Bry son i den tif i ed de f endan t as the shooter. He al so iden

tif ie d defen dant when

testify in g bef ore t he grand jury on M ay 19, 2006, and m

ade an in- co ur t ide nt ifica t io n o f de fen da nt at t r ial. Domi nic Pettis’s testim

ony regardi

ng the events i

n Bess em er Park on the eveni

ng of M ay 29, 200 4, w asne arl

y i de nti cal to Bry son ’s tes ti mony . How ever, he

sta ted tha t wh en the man on t he bike a ske d “What y’a’ll is?” he, McClelland a nd Villarr eal re spo nded t hat t hey wer e no t in a gang b ut Bryson aske d the ma

n what gang he was

in . Accordin

g to Pett is , the man

responded, “W hat?” an d Brys on to ok off runn

in g. Pett is saw the m

an pul l out a gun f

rom his wai st and he, along wit h McClelland a nd Villarr eal, go t up a nd r an. Pet t is hear d a g unsho t , fell to t he gr ou nd and t hen hea rd six or seve n guns hot s. P et t is st ayed o n t he gr ou nd fo r fo ur or five mi nut es u nt il he he ard the b i

ke ri de of f . He then got up, an

d when he did not se e an

y of h i s f ri en ds, we nt home . Pett is calle d McClella

nd’s phone. Vill

arreal an swered and told Pettis that McCl ella nd ha d been shot. Pet tis wen

t back to t he park an

d spoke to the police. The poli ce too k Pett is

and Vi ll arreal to the police station i

n separate squad cars. Pettis told the polic e that the shoot er was m al e, Hi spa ni c, aroun d 16 or 17 years

old , wi th a b ald he ad an

d a l ong pon y tai l , and wea

ri ng a red shi rt. Pet t is viewed a pho t o lineup and ide nt ifi ed d efenda nt as t he sho ot er but st at ed t hat he wo uld have to see th e su spe ct i

n pe rson to be su re. A s a re sul

t, the pol i ce di d not ask hi

m to si gn th

e ph oto. On Apr il 25, 2 006 , P et t is viewed a lineup a t t he po lice st at ion and ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he pers on wh

o shot Mc Clel

l and. He a

l so i den tif i ed de f endan t as the shooter when

he testi f i ed b ef ore t he gr an d ju ry o n Ma y 5, 20 06 , an d ma de an in- co ur t ide nt ifica t io n o f de fen da nt at t r ial.1-08-0015

-7-

Phi l l i p Vi l l arrea l si m i l arl y testi f i ed th at whi l e he, Mc Clel

l and, Petti s an

d Bry son were si tt in g in Bessem er Park on the eveni

ng of M ay

29, 2004, t al

kin g and sm oking m arij uana, a m

an r o de up o n a bik e a nd st o pp ed ap pr o ximat ely 2 0 fe et in fr o nt o f t he m. Ac co r din g t o Villa rr ea l, t he man ha d h is r igh t ha nd t uc ke d u nd er his s hir t an d a sk ed t he m “Wha t y’a ll is?” Villa rr ea l, McClella nd an d Pett is responded that they were n ot in a gang an

d Brys on asked the m

an wh at gang he wa s in. T he man o n t he bike p ulled a g un fro m his waist and t he fo ur men go t up a nd
ran . Vil l arrea

l sai d tha t he a nd McCl el l and were run ni ng n ex t to each other an

d Vi l l arrea l he ard f i ve or s i x g un sh ots. McC l el

l an d tol d V i l l arreal

tha t he ha d b een s hot a nd Vi l l arreal sa w b l ood comi ng f rom the back of

McClella nd’s ja cket. Vil la rreal f la gged down a poli

ce car that was driv in g past, and the poli

ce radi oed for an am

bul ance. Vi ll arreal s poke with an

off ic er about what ha ppe ne d a nd de scri be d the shoote

r as mal e, H i sp an i c, b al d w i th a pon y tai l , 5 f ee t 5 i nc he s to 5 feet 7 i nch es, 15 to 17 years old an

d wearin g a red shi

rt and black pants or shorts. The poli ce to ok Vil la rreal to the poli ce station where h e vi ewed a photo li

neup, i mm edi ately ide ntif ie d defen dant as the sh

oot er, and si

gned h is nam e underne ath defe

ndan t’s picture. Villa

rreal v ie wed a lineup o n Apr il 25, 2 006 and ide nt ifi ed d efenda nt as t he sho ot er . Whe n he t est ifi ed be for e t he grand j ury, Vi

ll arreal i dentif ie d defen dant in a photo as t he m

an wh o shot McClel

la nd an d ma de
an in- co ur t ide nt ifica t io n o f de fen da nt du r ing t r ial. Ch i cago pol i ce of f i cer L ou Toth testif

i ed th at on Ma

y 29, 200 4, he

and hi s pa rtner were on p atrol i n a n a rea ne ar B es semer P ark

when the y rec ei ve d a rad i o di sp atc h w

i th a de scri ption of
a m an wan ted in c onnecti on with a

shooting i

n the park. The m

an was de scri

bed as a teen

age male His pa nic , ap pr o ximat ely 5 fee t 5 in ch es t o 5 fe et 6 in ch es , wit h a sha ve d h ea d a nd po nyt ail,1-08-0015

-8-

riding a bike and wea ring a re d T -shir t . T ot h t est ifi ed t hat he kne w t hat t he de fendant , w ho he said w as a “self-ad mitt ed L at in King,” lived ne ar t he pa rk and mat ched t he de scr ipt ion o f the shoot er. T ot h drove to defendan t’s house, but said that neither the defendant nor his b ike was there. Tot h then

drove to the scene

of the sh oot in g and told the detectiv

es there that he suspected def endan t mi ght b e the shooter. The n

ex t day, an i nv esti gati ve alert was i ssued f or def endan t. Tot h contin

ued to look for defendan

t, go in g to Latin Ki ng ha ngouts to question people about defendan t’s whereabout s and to d efendan t’s house o n several

occasions over t he nex

t t wo years, but n ev er located de f

endan t. Detective Ja

me s Hladi k testifi ed that he was ass ign

ed to inve stigate the sh

oot in g at Be ss em er Pa rk on Ma y 29 , 20 04 . A f

ter sp ea ki n g w i th Toth , H l ad

i k a n d oth er of f i cerswen t to defend ant ’s ho use t o lo ok for him. When t hey did no t see t he de fendant or a bicycle o ut side t he house, the o ff

icers knock ed o n the do or of defendant’s ho use. With t he permissi on o f defendant’s
m other, th e of

f i cers en tered a nd s earche d the

hous e but di d not f

i nd d ef endan t. Hla dik testi fi ed that on the ni ght of the sh oot in g, he spoke wi

th Vil la rreal an d Pett is at Area 2 headquart ers and that bo th witnesses gave si mi lar descriptions of the perpetrat or as a male, Hispa

ni c teen ager, w i th a c l osel y shav ed h ead a nd p ony tai l and wea ri ng a red shi rt and dark pant s. H ladik also co nduc t ed t he pho t o lineup for Villarre al and P et t is. T he da y after t he shooting, Hladi

k spoke with Bry

son, who gave detectiv

es a sl ip of paper with a

written de scri pti on of th e sh oote r. B ry

son also t ol d H l ad

i k th at th e sh oote r w as

mal e, La ti n o, 5 f eet 9 in ches to 5 feet 11 i

nch es, 15 to 16 years old, wi

th a shav ed hai r and a pony

tail , 140 to 170 pounds and wearing a red shi rt and dar k jeans . In December 2004, Hladik obtain ed an arrest1-08-0015

-9-

warra nt f or def endan t. Officer R ichard Arr oyo t est ifi ed t hat on Ap ril 25, 200 6, at app ro ximately 1: 30 a .m. , he and h is partner were on patro l wh en they recei ved a cal l a bout a burglar al

arm at Bowen Hi

gh Sch ool at 8 9th Stre et a nd Ma rquetteA ve nu e. W hi l e they were l ooki ng arou nd the school bu ild ing , Ar r o yo sa w a ca rat t he co rne ro f 8 9t h a nd Ma r qu et t e w it ho ut it s h ea dl ig ht s o n. Ar r o yo dr ove t ow ar d t he ca r a nd sa w it t ur n into an alley. Ar ro yo next saw t he ca r o n 89t h St re et and South Ch i cago A ve nu e. H e acti

va ted hi s M ars l i gh ts a nd si ren an d f ol l owe d the c ar f

or th ree or four bl ocks until it pul le d over. Arroyo approached the car on the driv er’s si de whi le hi s partner approached on the passen ger si de. Arroyo asked the dri ver f or his l ic ense an d in surance ca

rd, whi ch the dri ver did not pro duce. Arroyo then aske d the driv er hi s nam

e and the dri

ver re spo nded “Jo se Che vez. ” Arr oyo re co gnized t hat t he dr iver w as a ct ually Efren Ag uilar, who was wanted f

or homici de. Arroyo’s partner y elle d, “Gun.” A

rroyo saw a gun on the pass enger si de fl oor and sai

d that he tried to grab the driver through the win dow, but t he dri

ver drove off

at a h i gh ra te of sp ee d. A

rroy o an d h i s p ar tn er ra n b ack to th

ei r s qu ad ca r a n d p ur sued

de f en da n t, unt il hi s ca r c ame t o a n abr upt st op at a r ailro ad e mbankment . D efenda nt t hen exit ed t he ca r a nd
ra n into t he r ailro ad yar d at 94t h St re et , a nd Ar ro yo and his par t ner chas ed him on fo ot . D ur ing the chase , Arroyo saw def endan t t urn around and poi

nt a gun at hi

m. A rroyo pull ed out his gun
an d fir ed o ne sho t . Ar r o yo t es t ified t ha t he ide nt ified himse lf as a C hic ag o po lice o ffice ran d t o ld the de f en da nt to s top a nd dropthe gun bu t de f en da nt c onti nu ed to run . A

rroy o l ost s i gh

t of def endan t, but ev en tuall y caug ht up w i th h i m agai n. A rroyo though

t def endan t was g oin

g to fi re his g un ag ain , so Ar r o yo fire d h is g un a s ec o nd t ime, bu t miss ed de fen da nt . Ar r o yo ev en t ua lly1-08-0015

-10-

cau ght defend ant , t ack led him and hand cuffed him. When he r olled d efenda nt ove r, Arr oyo fou nd a cell ph one underne ath defe

ndan t but no gun. Arroyo and sev eral of fi cers subs equentl

y s earched t he r ailro ad yar d but did no t find a gu n. Detecti v e P at H ackett tes

ti f i ed th at on A pri l 25 , 20 06 , he a

n d h i s p ar tn er wereas si gn ed to i n v esti ga te a n ag gr av ate d a ss aul

t to a p oli ce

of f i ce r a t th e rai l yard n ea r 9 4th Str eet. H ackett spoke with def

endan t, who t old Hackett that his n am e was “Jose Chev

ez,” that he liv

ed at 9013 South Com

merci al and was born on F ebruary

16, 198 7. A f

ter spe aki ng w i th other pol i ce of f i cers abo ut defend ant ’s ident ity and r eviewing p hot os of d efenda nt and his ide nt ify ing mark s, includ ing t at t oo s o f the wo rd s “Lat in” and “King” on his r ight and left wr ist, Hac ket t det er mined t hat he
wasEf ren Ag uil ar. Defe ndan t o ff ered no witne sses at trial

but presented a stipul

ation that Detective A

rtega would testif

y tha t t he ages of

the partici

pants i n the l in eup vi ewed by Brys on were 27, 39, 40, 19 and 38. In the State’s rebuttal, i t was stipulated that Det ective Artega would testif y tha t t he age of the partici

pants i n the l in eup vi ewed by Vil la rreal an d Pett is were 19, 17, 17, and 18. A f ter d el i be rati ons , th e j ury

f oun d the d ef en da nt g ui l ty of the m urder of Bra nd on McClelland. Fo llowing t rial, d efenda nt fil ed a mot ion fo r a judg ment o f acqu itt al not wit hst anding the verdict or , alternati

vel y, a n ew trial , assertin

g that t he trial

court erred when i

t excl uded testim ony f rom his ey

ewi tness i dentif ic ation ex pert. T he court denie d the motion f or a new trial and sen tenced def

endan t t o 50 years i

n pri son. Defe

ndan t’s motion to reconside

r the sentence was deni ed on Decem

ber 18, 2007. Thi s appeal fol lowed.1-08-0015

-11- II. AN AL YSIS Defendan t first contends t hat the t rial cour t err ed in

refusi ng to permi

t his ey ewitness iden tifi cation expert t o t estify

, and that as a result, he was denied the righ t t o pr esent a defense and s hou ld be gr ant ed a new t rial. D efenda nt ’s pr imary arg ument is tha t in denying his mot ion, t he t rial co ur t failed t o fo llow t his co ur t ’s de cision in People v . Alle n , 376 Ill . App. 3d 511 (2007), by ca

reful ly scrutin izin g the proffe

red expert witnes s testim

ony un der the circum

stances of t his case , w her e t he pr imary evidence at t rial was t he eyew itnes s t est imony. We d isagr ee, and find tha t beca use t he t rial co ur t adhe re d t o t he ho lding in Al le n as w el l as Il l i noi s Suprem

e Court pr ec ed en t s r eg ar din g a dmis sibilit y o f eye wit ne ss ide nt ifica t io n e xp er t t es t imo ny, t he t r ial c o ur t did not err i n re f usi ng to perm

i t the ex pert wi tnes s to testi f

y . Gene ra lly , e xper t wit nesse s will be per mitt ed t o t est ify if their e xper ience a nd qualif ic ations af

ford them knowle dge whi

ch i s not comm

on to la y pe rsons and wh

ere such testi m ony wil l aid the trie r of f act i n re ach i ng i ts conc l usi on. E nis , 139 Ill . 2d at 288. A tr ia l court is giv en b road discretion w

hen determi ni ng the adm

is si bi li ty of ex pert t estim

ony, an d when considerin

g the reli abi li ty of the ex

pert t estim

ony, the court should b al ance i ts probative val

ue agai nst itsprej udicial

ef f ect. E nis , 13 9 I l l . 2d

at 2 90 . Th

e c our t sh oul d al so c on si

der the n ec es si ty
and rel ev ance of the expe rt testi mony i n l i ght of the f acts of the c ase be f ore adm i ttin g i t. E nis , 139 Il l . 2d at 29 0. “ [A] tri

al court’s deci sion to all ow or exc l

ude e yewi tnes s iden tif i cation ex pert testim ony m ust be m ade on a case-b

y-cas e basi

s” ( Ti sde l II , 338 Ill . App. 3d at 468) and such dec ision will not be r ever sed abse nt an abu se o f discr et ion ( E nis , 139 Il l . 2d 288 ). In E nis , defen

dant was cha

rged with m

urder in the stabbi

ng death of a

woman in si de her1-08-0015

-12-

apa rt ment bu ilding. T he St at e pr ese nt ed t he t est imony of seve n wit nesse s who wer e nea r t he apartment bui

ldi ng at the tim

e of the m urder and saw def

endan t o utside the b

uil din g. Our supr em e court held tha

t the tri al court did not err i

n b arri ng d ef endan t from pres en tin g an ex pert wit ness w ho w ou ld t est ify abo ut t he r eliabili

t y of eyewit ness t est imony. T he exp er t wo uld have t es t ified t ha t t he r ela t io nsh ip b et we en co nfid en ce an d a cc ur ac y in eye wit ne ss ide nt ifica t io ns is insign if ican t; that the high

er the st ress lev

el the less accurate the mem ory; that an eyewi

tness ide nt ifica t io n is u su ally w o r se if a w ea po n is p r es en t ; a nd t ha t jur o r s g ive t o o muc h w eig ht t o t ime esti mates. E nis , 1 39 I ll. 2d a t 285 . T he co ur t fou nd t hat t he exp er t t est imony wo uld no t have ai ded the trier of f

act in reachi ng i ts conclus ion b ecause n

one of the ey

ewi tnesses was

in a hi gh stres s si tuati on wh

en they saw def endan t. E nis , 139 Ill . 2d at 288. Only one wi tness testif

ie d that he saw a weapon, but he was n

ot near the def

endan t and he was un

aware that a crim

e had b een com m i tted. E nis , 1 39 I ll. 2d a t 288 -8 9. The co ur t also fou nd t hat t her e wa s litt le releva nce t o t he tim e estim ates, and that although the wi tnesses’ confi

dence m ay have been

at issue in the case, that f actor al one d i d not wa rran t a ne w tri al
. E nis , 139 Il

l . 2d at 28 9. T he co ur t als o iss ue d a wo r d o f c au t io n w it h r eg ar d t o eye wit ne ss ex pe r t t es t imo ny, sta ti n g, “ W e a recon cerned wi th th e rel i ab i l i ty of ey ewi tn es s ex pert te sti mon y ** *, w h eth er an d to what degree it can aid the jury , and if it is necessary

in li ght o f the defen

dant’s abil

ity to cro ssex amine eye wit ne ss es . An e xp er t ’s o pin io n c o nc er ning t he un r elia bilit y o f eye wit ne ss t es t imo ny is base d o n st at istica l avera ges . T he eyew itnes s in a pa rt icular cas e may well not fit into t he spe ctrum of these av erage s. It woul

d be i na ppropri ate f or a j ury to concl ude, b ase d on expe

rt testim ony, that al

l e ye witne ss testim

ony i s unrel ia ble.” E nis , 139 Il

l . 2d at 28 9-90.1-08-0015

-13-

Sub se que nt I l l i noi s c as esha ve he l d that a

tri al cou rt m ay excl ude ex pe rt testi mony on eyewit ness ide nt ifi

cat ion if the co ur t finds t hat t he t est imony is not re levant or wo uld no t aid t he trie r of f act. In Ti sde l

II , t hi s court noted that numerous st udies i n the area of eyewi

tness psycho log y indicate t her e is significant po t ent ial for e yewitne ss er ro r, and t hat juro rs ha ve m i scon cepti ons a bout the ab i l i tie s of ey ewi tnes ses . Ti sde l

II , 338 Ill . App. 3d at 467. Therefore,
we h el d th at a trial cou rt “ sh oul d c aref ul l y scru ti n ize th e prof f ered testi mon y to deter m i n e i ts re levance –t hat is, whe t her t her e is a lo gical co nnect ion bet wee n t he t est imony and t he fact s o f the case. Normal

ly , expert test im

ony tha t is probativ

e and rel evan t should b e allowed.” Ti sde l II , 338 Ill . App. 3d at 468 citi ng Peo ple v. Sar gea nt , 292 Il l . Ap p. 3d 50 8 (199 7). The defend ant in Ti sde l

II contended that the expert’s testim ony s hould h ave b een admit t ed be cau se it wo uld have aided t he jur y in reaching a mor e infor med de cision a s t o t he credibi li ty of the eyewi

tness t est imony. Be cau se t he r eco rd sho wed t he t rial judg e co nsider ed t he reliabili ty and potent ial

hel pful ness of the testimony, balan ced the pro ff

ered t estim

ony agai nst ca se s in w hic h c o ur t s ha ve up he ld t he ex clu sio n o f su ch ev ide nc e, an d fo un d t he t es t imo ny w o uld not ass i st the jury, we f

ound th at the tri al court properl

y ex ercised i ts di scre tion und er E nis
. Ti sde l II , 338 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 468. More re cen

tly , thi s court took another l ook at the i ssue of

the a dm i ssi bi l i ty of ex pert t est imony on t he r eliabili

t y of eyewit ness ide nt ifi

cat ion in People v . Alle

n , 376 Ill . App. 3d 511 (2 007 ). In Allen, the Stat e brought several charges aga

in st defen dant, in cl udin g attempted
m urder, f oll owi ng th e arm ed rob bery of a dry clean ers. Th e State h ad one ey ewi tnes s, the store cl erk, who was shot in

the back an

d who was sh

own a photo arr ay

after learni

ng that the police1-08-0015

-14-

had som eone i n custody . She

did not iden

tif y the def endan t in pers on un

til more than

31⁄2 y ears l ater, dur i ng a prel i m i na ry he ari ng w hi l e def endan t sat at counsel ’stabl

e i n h i s j ail uni f orm. Fo llowing his co nvictio n, d efenda nt ar gue d o n app eal t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in re fusing t o g ra nt his req ues t t o p re sent t he t est imony of an e yewitne ss ident ifi cat ion exp er t . T his co ur t agr eed and
reverse d def

endan t’s c onv i cti ons a nd r em anded to the

tria l court. Al

le n , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 526. In i ts opini on, the Al le n co ur t cr iticized t he t rial co ur t for faili ng t o c omp ly with t he mandat e in E nis and Ti sde l II , that a cou rt s h oul d " ' ca re f ul l y scru ti n ize th e p rof f ered testi mon y to det er mine its r elevanc e–t hat is, whe t her t her e is a lo gical co nnect ion bet wee n t he t est imony and the facts of the case.' " Al le n , 376 Ill . App. 3d at 523 quot in g Ti sde l II , 338 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 468. Al though the bal

anci ng test requires a wei

ghi ng of the probati

ve val ue agai nst i ts prejudi ci al effect , t he t rial co ur t in Al le n did no t car efully scrut inize the pr oba t ive value a nd r elevanc e o f the t es t imo ny be fo r e c o nc lud ing , wit h “no co nsid er ed ba sis , ” t ha t t he pr o po se d t es t imo ny w o uld conf use the j ury . Al

le n , 37 6 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 5 26 . “Be ca

us e of th e tr i al cou rt’ s f ai l ur e to c on du ct a mea ning ful in qu iry in t o [ t he ex pe r t ’s ] pr o po se d t es t imo ny, un de rt he sp ec ific c irc ums t an ce s o f t his
cas e,” th i s court rev

erse d the def endan t’s c onv i cti on an d rem anded f or a ne w tri al
. Al

le n , 37 6 I ll. App. 3d at 526. The court , however, li mi ted its holdin

g, stating that it was n

ot expressi

ng an op inion o n whet her t he t rial co ur t on r emand s hou ld allow a ny par t of t he o ffer o f pro of t o be heard by the jury , but was “si

mpl y h old[i ng] the off

er of proof must be giv

en seri ous consideration.” Al

le n , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 526. Fur t her , in scr ut inizing the p ro ffered t est imony “in the co nt ext of t he fact ual po st ur e o f the
ca se , ” t his c o ur t fo un d t ha t alt ho ug h so me o f t he da t a a nd co nc lus io ns in t he ex pe r t ’s r ep o r t did1-08-0015

-15-

no t fit t he fac t s o f t he ca se , o t he rpa r t s o f t he r ep o r t we r e r ele va nt an d r efe rt o co mmo nly
acc epted m

i scon cepti ons. Al le n , 376 Ill. App. 3d at 524. For insta nce, t he pro pose d expert ’s
re po rt in Al

le n presented data concerni

ng weapon f

ocus, stress, and the relationshi p between wi tnes s conf i den ce a nd w i tnes s ac curac

y , i ssues that the Sta

te stres sed

i n c l osi ng a rgum en t. Al le n , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 524-25. Defend ant asse rt s t hat base d o n t his co ur t ’s ho lding in Al le n , t he t rial co ur t sho uld have per mitt ed t he eyew itnes s exp er t t o t est ify. We disag re e. First , in t his case , u nlike in Al le n , t he t rial co ur t adhe re d t o t he ho ldings in E nis and Ti sde l II requiri ng caref ul s crutiny

of the proposed
ex pert testi mony on ey ewi tnes s iden tif i cation. The tri al

court he ard re spon

den t’s m otion be f ore trial and b ased on the proff

ered testim

ony a nd appropriate case l

aw , conc l uded that the ex pert testim ony would be

more prej udic ia

l than probative an

d would be

confus in g to the jury. When the def endan t fi l ed a m otion to recons i der, t he t r ial c o ur t co nd uc t ed a s ec o nd he ar ing an d a ga in
re viewed t he pr offer ed t est imony in l ight of t he fact s befo re it and app ro pr iate cas e law, including t he ho lding in Al

le n , a nd de t er mined t hat it w as no t admissible. T her efo re , t he t rial co ur t gave t he pr offer ed t est imony the scr ut iny call ed fo r in Al

le n befo re det er mini

ng t hat it w as no t re levant and
wo ul d n o t as sis t t he jury. This finding is simil

ar t o t he co nclusio ns re ache d in In re Keith C. , 378 Ill . App. 3d 252 (2007) and People v . Thomas , 377 Il l . Ap p. 3d 95 0 (200 7), wh

i ch were i ssued shortl

y af ter Al le n and f ound that t he trial

court s di d not err in ex

cl udin g ey ewi tness ex pert t estim

ony. In each cas e, this court found that beca

use the trial

court gave the proff

ered expert testim

ony the seri ous co nsider at ion ca lled for in Al le n , t hey did no t abus e t heir d iscre t ion in re fusing t o a dmit t he1-08-0015

-16-

testi m ony . In re Keith C. , 378 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 264 (“ Al le n re inforc es o ur co nclusio n as t o t he admissibili

t y of [t he exp er t wit ness’ s] p ro po sed t est imony. ** * [ U] nlike t he t rial co ur t in Al le n , the trial court in this case gave the proposed t estim ony s erious consi

deration bef

ore it determi

ned that it was not relev

ant.”) and Thomas , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 961 (citin g Al le n in c o nc lud ing t ha t in the b ench tria l “the tri al court clearl

y gave se ri ous con siderati

on to the adm

i ssi on of the expe rt t est imony.”) . Like wise in t he inst ant cas e, t he t rial co ur t gave t he r equ isite c ons ider at ion t o t he pr o po se d e xp er t t es t imo ny be fo r e c o nc lu di ng t ha t it wa s n o t r ele va nt an d w o ul d n o t he lp t he ju ry. Fu r t he rmo r e, in r ev iew ing t he pr o ffer ed ex pe r t t es t imo ny, we find t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did not er r in co ncluding t hat it sho uld be e xclude d. As t he t rial co ur t not ed, unlike in Allen, wh ere the one ey

ewi tness i dentif ie d defen dant 31⁄2 years

after the i

nci dent, in this case two eyewi

tnesses ident ifi ed d efenda nt wit hin 24 ho ur s o f the sho ot ing and t he t hird e yewitne ss p icked defend ant from the photo ar ray b

ut stat ed that he would h

ave to see the suspect i

n person to be sure. Gi

ven t hat defend ant was po sitively ident ifi ed s o s oo n aft er t he incident , t he t rial co ur t co rr ect ly f ou nd that expert t estim

ony c oncerni

ng the pass age of tim

e between the i

nci dent and the accuracy

of an ey ewi tnes s iden tif i cation woul

d not b e rel

ev an t. De f en da nt’ s exp ert wi

tne ss woul d al so h

ave te sti f i ed reg ard i ng the l ac k of correl ati on between the ce

rtainty with wh ic h a wi tness m akes an i dentif ic ation an d the val idi ty of that i de nti f i ca ti on. How ev

er, asthe tri al cou rt noted i n i ts f i rs t he ari ng on th e m oti on, al thou gh two of the ey ewi tnesses testif

ie d that t hey

were certain

that t he m

an they ide ntif ie d in the photo ar ray was the sh

oot er, one of the wi

tnesses, Dom

in ic Pett is , stated t hat he was n ot certain a

nd wan ted t o view t he su spe ct in per so n befo re ident ify ing him as the sho ot er . T her efo re , t his te st imony1-08-0015

-17-

would not b e rel

ev an t to t he rel i ab i l i ty of Petti s’ s testi

mony and coul d, asthe tri

al court conc l uded , resu

l t in j ury conf usi on. La stl y , th e e xp ert wi

tne ss woul d have te sti

f i ed on th e e f f ec ts of stre ss an d the p res en

ceof weap ons on

ey ewi tnes s iden tif i cation. The tri al

court f ound th at thes e ef

f ects were “

pure speculation” and would not assist the jury i n determin

in g the accuracy of the eyewi tness ide ntif ic ations. The E nis co ur t fou nd t hat suc h t est imony was no t admissible wher e no ne o f the eyewit nesse s wa s in a high st re ss sit uat ion and only o ne sa w a w eap on bu t he wa s far a way and
una ware that a cri me had b een

com m i tted. E nis , 139, Ill . 2d at 288-89. In the presen t case, due t o t he cir cu mst an ce s o f t he sho o t ing it is lik ely t ha t t he eye wit ne ss es we r e u nd er st r es s a nd all three testifi

ed that they saw a

weapon. However, this f actor alone, when wei ghed agai nst the f act that t hree ey

ewi tnesses i dentif ie d defen dant and two did so wi

thin 24 hours of the sh

oot in g, does not warra nt a n ew trial
. Fo llowing t he st anda rd s set for t h in E nis , Ti sde l II and Al le n , t he t rial co ur t co nsider ed t he pr o ffer by t he de fen se be fo r e e xc lud ing t he eye wit ne ss ex pe r t t es t imo ny o n t he gr o un ds t ha t it would be more prej udic ia

l than probative an

d could l ead to jury conf

usi on. Therefore, the trial court did not ab

use i ts di scre tion i n re f usi ng to ad m i t that testi mony . Ne xt , de fen da nt as se r t s t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in a dmit t ing ev ide nc e s ur r o un din g h is
ar re st . P rio r t o t rial, t he co ur t gr ant ed t he St at e’s mo t ion t o p re sent evidenc e o f the ci rcum stan ces of def endan t’s 20 06 arre st i

n orde r to show c onsc i ousness

of g uil t. Bef ore testi m ony ab out the arre st was

pres en ted, the j udge ask ed de f en se c ouns el

i f he wan ted the court to in struct t he j ury regardi

ng the l im ited purpose of the testim ony, b ut defens e counsel

declin ed,1-08-0015

-18-

stati ng th at i t was a l ready i n the i nstructi ons a

nd th at he pref erred i t not be p oin

ted out to the j ury . On appeal, defen

dant argues that the trial

court erred in

permi tt in g this evi dence b ecause i

t was not relevan

t t o t he f irst degree m

urder charge and was off

ered to show t hat defe

ndan t was armed
and reck l ess and onl y serv ed to prej udice the j ury

agai nst hi m . Evi de nc e of

othe r cr i mesi s adm

i ss i bl e if i t i s rel evan t f or an y pur pos e other th

an to sh ow the def endan t’s pr open si ty to com m i t cri mes. Peop l e v . Wi l son , 21 4 Il l . 2d 127 , 13 5 (2 005 ). F or i n sta n ce , e v i den ce

of oth er cri mes i s a dm i ss i b l e to s h ow c on sc i ousn es s of

gui l t ( Peo ple v. Haw kins , 326 Ill . App. 3d 992, 997 (2001) citin g People v . Bean , 137 Il

l . 2d 65, 1 07-08 (1990 ))
and to show th

e ci rcum stan ces surroun di ng d ef endan t’s a rrest. ( People v . Colem

an , 158 Ill . 2d 31 9, 3 35 -3 6 ( 19 94 )). " 'W h en such ev i den ce i s of f ered , i t i s i n cu m b en t up on th e tr i al j udge to weigh t he r elevanc e o f the evidenc e t o e st ablish the pur po se fo r w hich it is o ffered aga inst t he prejudici al ef fect the introduct ion of such ev iden ce may have upon the defendant.' " Peo ple v. Ha rr is , 225 Ill . 2d 1, 28 (2007) quo ting People v . Stewart , 10 5 Il l . 2d 22, 62 ( 198 4). Evi de nc e of f l i ght a nd th e us e of an ass um ed n am e m ay be adm i ssi bl e as proof of cons ciousness

of g uil t. Ha rr is , 2 25 I ll. 2d a t 23. “The a dmissibil ity o f ot her -c rimes evide nce r est s wit hin the s ou nd dis cretion of the tria

l c ourt , and i

ts decis ion on the m

atter wil l n ot be di sturbed absen

t a clear abuse of dis cretion.” W i l son, 214 Il l . 2d at 13 6. Contrary to defendan

t’s assertion that testim

ony regardi

ng def endan t’s 2006 arrest was
o nly o ffer ed t o sho w c ha r ac t er an d p r o pe nsit y t o co mmit a c r ime, t he ev ide nc e w as pr o pe r ly admit t ed t o s how defend ant ’s co nscio usne ss o f guilt. Evide nce w as p re sent ed s how ing t hat t he police went to defendan

t’s house i

mm edi ately after the sh

oot in g and told hi

s m ot her and b

rot her1-08-0015

-19-

t ha t t he y we r e lo o kin g fo rhim an d t ha t t he po lice co nt inu ed t o lo o k fo rhim at his h o us e a nd in hi s nei ghborhood over the next two years. Theref ore, it is l ike ly that defenda

nt knew that he was wanted by

the police. When h

e was stopped by

the police, defen

dant gave a f

al se nam e and then fl ed from the scene , leadi

ng the poli

ce on a car chas e and then fl ed on foot. When def

endan t was su bse qu en t ly ap pr eh en de d, he ag ain ga ve t he po lice a fa lse na me a nd ad dr es s. As o ur su pr eme co ur t held in Ha rr is , “bo t h e vid en ce o f fligh t an d t he us e o f an as su med na me ma y be a dmis sible as proof of consci

ousness of

guil t.” Ha rr is , 225 Ill . 2d at 23. After a heari ng on the i ssue, the trial
cou rt determ i ne d that al

thou gh the ev i de nc e m i gh t not b e adm

i ss i bl e to s how the ci rcu m sta nc esof de f en da n t’s ar re st, i t wa s rel ev an t to s h ow c on sc i ousn es s of gui l t. Th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts dis cretion i

n adm ittin g the evi dence f or t hat purpose. De f en da n t n ex t ar gu es th at th e S tate f ai l ed to prov e h

i m gui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t, wher e t he o nly evidence a gainst him was t he t est imony of t hre e eyew itnes ses, who se t est imony
was incons iste nt wit h eac h ot her 's t est imony and wit h kno wn fact s. T he St at e as ser t s t hat t he t hre e eyew itnes ses c learly, c ons iste nt ly, and r epe at edly ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he sho ot er , a nd when the evi dence is vi

ewed i n a l igh t most favorabl

e to t he State, t he def

endan t was proved gui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t.

“ W he n [ a d ef en da nt] ch al l en ge [s ] th e suf

f i ci en cy of the ev i de nc e, i t i s n ot the f un cti on of this court to retry the def

endan t.” Pe o ple v. Ha ll , 1 94 I ll. 2d 3 05, 329 -3 0 ( 200 0) . A r eviewing
co ur t must det er mine whet her , a fte r view ing t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion, any rat ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he es sent ial elements of t he cr ime beyond
a rea sona bl e doubt. Peo ple v. Eva ns , 2 09 I ll. 2d 1 94, 209 (2 004 ). Where t he finding o f the1-08-0015

-20-

defen dant’s gui lt depen ds on ey ewi tness testim

ony, a rev ie win g court mus

t decide wh

ether a fac

t f i nde r coul d reas onab l

y acc ept the

testi mony as true bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Peo ple v. Cunn in gham , 2 12 I ll. 2d 2 74, 279 (2 004 ). Unde r t his st anda rd , t he eyew itnes s t est imony may be fo un d in su fficie nt “o nly wh er e t he r ec o r d e vid en ce co mpe ls t he co nc lus io n t ha t no r ea so na ble person could acce

pt it bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt.” Cunn

in gham , 212 Ill . 2d at 280. A crim in al
con vi cti on w i l l not b e s et a si

deon a ppe al un l es s th e evi de nc e i s s o un

rea son ab l e, i m prob ab l e or uns ati sf actory that i t creates a rea sona bl e doubt as to the de f

endan t’s gu i l t. Ha ll , 194 Ill . 2d at 330 . In rev i ew i ng the ev i de nc e, th e c ourt wi l l

not s ub sti tute i ts j udg men t f or th at of the tri er of f act. Peo ple v. Su t her land , 223 Il l . 2d 187 , 242 (2 006). Defend ant asse rt s t hat t he eyew itnes ses’ t est imony is not re liable becau se t he sho ot ing t oo k plac e in a pa rk at night wit hou t nat ur al light and beca use t he wit nesse s did no t kno w t he
o ffen de r , did no t de sc r ibe an y o f de fen da nt ’s ph ysic al c ha r ac t er ist ics , an d d id n o t ha ve amp le op po rt unit y to view him since t he eve nt happ ened in a matt er of se co nds. In a ddit ion, defend ant ass erts, two y

ears l aps ed b etween the sh

ootin g an d the phy sical l i ne up. Altho ugh t he sho ot ing did o ccu r in a p ar k at night , t he evide nce p re sent ed s how ed t hat t he park was wel

l l it, and i t is n ot unreasonab le

to assum e that the jury

could concl

ude that under t hos e circ umst ance s a p os itive ident ifi cat ion co uld be mad e. In a ddit ion, altho ugh d efenda nt argues that the witnes ses’ f ai lure to describ e defe

ndan t’s phy si cal characteri stics, such

as f aci al ha ir o rt at t o o s, mak es t he ir id en t ifica t io n o f de fen da nt un r elia ble , ea ch eye wit ne ss se pa r at ely descri bed the sh

oot er as a m

al e, His pani c teenager who had a b al d head an d ponytai l a nd was wearin g a red T-shi

rt. Based on these descri

ptions, whi

ch each ey ewi tness repeated on seve

ral1-08-0015

-21-

occasions , it would n

ot be un reasonabl e for a f act fi nder to accept t he ey

ewi tnesses’ testim

ony as true b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. De fen da nt als o as se r t s t ha t inc o nsis t en cie s be t we en t he wit ne ss es an d in ac cu r ac ies in t he ir t est imony make t hem unr eliable. Fo r inst ance , d efenda nt asse rt s t hat Pet t is te st ifi ed t hat he immed iat ely s ele ct ed de fen da nt in a ph o t o lineu p, wh ile t he lea d d et ec t ive sa id h e d id n o t . Pe t t is t es t ified t ha t he pic ke d d efe nd an t o ut fr o m t he ph o t o lineu p t he da y aft er t he sho o t ing , bu t sa id t hat he wo uld nee d t o s ee him in pers on t o be sur e. Pet t is subse que nt ly i dent ifi ed d efenda nt in the phy si cal li neup. Detective Hl adi

k essen tial ly said the sam

e thin g, therefore, their testim

ony was not i nc onsi sten t. Wi th regar d to Vil

larreal’ s test im

ony, defen

dant assert s that he described the shoot er as 5 feet 5 inches , e ven t hou gh de fendant is 6 feet t all. Ho weve r, Villarre al act ually desc ribed t he shooter as b ei

ng b etween 5 f

eet 5 i nche s an d 5 f eet 7 i nche s an d tha t was two y

ears be f ore de f en da n t, w h o wa s a tee n ag er at th e ti me of th e i n ci den t, w as ar re ste d. D ef

en da n t also ass er

ts t ha t Villa rr ea l, un like t he o t he rwit ne ss es , sa id t ha t he ne ve rsa w a gu n, bu t Villa rr ea l ac t ua lly testifi ed that he onl

y s aw the han

dle of the gun an

d, therefore, could not iden tif y w hat type of gun it was. Further, def

endan t asserts that Villa

rreal sa id that he knew Bry

son, whi le Brys on testifi

ed that he m et every one for the f

irst tim e that ni ght in

the park. However, Vil

la rreal sa id that he saw Br y son on sp ec i al occ as i on s a

t Mc Cl el l an d’ s h ous e, an d i t wou l d n ot b e u n re as on ab l e f

or a j ur y to concl ude that Vil

la rreal di d not remem

ber m eetin g Brys on. Lastly

, defen dant asserts that Vil la rreal stated that he pl ed wi th the shooter not to shoot t hem but that no o ne else heard h im do t hat . H ow ever , B ryso n did t est ify t hat in the midd le of t he gu nsho t s, he hear d Villarr eal saying1-08-0015

-22-

“Co me o n, co me o n, co me o n. ” I n a dd it io n, giv en t ha t t he wit ne ss es we r e a ll ru nnin g a wa y in diffe r en t dir ec t io ns, it is no t un r ea so na ble t o co nc lud e t ha t t he y might no t ha ve he ar d V illar r ea l. Al l of these al

leged i nconsis tencies, as well

as possibl

e im pedim ents to the witnesses’ ide nt ifica t io ns o f de fen da nt , we r e b efo r e t he jur o r s, wh o ha d t he o pp o r t un it y t o co nsid er t he m in
re ach i n g th ei r verdi ct. In re v i ewi n g al l of th e ev i den ce

i n ac cord w i

th th e stan da rd set f orth ab ove, a rati onal trie r of f act coul d ha ve f ound d ef endan t’s gu i l t bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Accordin gly , we reject def

endan t’s assertion that the State faile d to prove hi m gui lty bey ond a
reas onab l e doubt. Lastly , defen dant contends that the trial court abused i

ts discretion in

sentenci ng hi m to 50 ye ars’ i mprisonm ent. The senten

ci ng range f

or murder is

20 to 60 ye ars. 730 ILCS 5/5-8- 1( a) ( 1) ( a) ( We st 20 06 )
. Ho we ve r , if du r ing t he co mmiss io n o f t he o ffen se t he o ffen de rpe r so na lly discha rg es a firear m “that pr oximat ely cause d gr eat bod ily har m, pe rmanent disability, p er manent dis fi guremen t, o r death to another person, 25 yea rs or up t o a term of natural li fe s hal l b e added to the term

of i m pri sonm en t im posed by the c ourt.” 730 ILCS 5/5 -8-1(a )(1)(d)(i i i)(We st 2006 ). In thi s c as e, th e tri al cou rt se nte nc ed de f en da nt to 2 5 y ea rs on th e f i rs t de gre e m

urder c onv

i cti on and a dde d 25 years for t he us e o f a firear m dur ing t he o ffense. Defend ant ar gue s t hat t he sentence is excess iv e becaus e the trial

court fai le d to consider relev

ant facto rs in

mi tigation as wel l as def endan t’s a ge an d reh ab i l i tativ e poten tia l . We di sag ree. Th e tri al cou rt i s v es ted wi th w i dedi screti

on i n s en ten ci ng , h owe ve

r, suc h d i screti on i s n ot wi th out l i m i tati on . Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 6 15 (b )(4 ) gra

n ts th e rev i ewi n g c our t th e p owe

r to reduc e the

sen tenc e i m posed by the tri al court. 134 Il

l . 2d R. 6 15(b )(4). The rul e i tself , however,1-08-0015

-23-

do es no t set for t h t he sc op e o f this p ow er or t he circ umst ance s und er which it s hou ld be
exerc i se d. R

ather, de ci si

ons of our s upr em e c ourt h ave e sta bl i sh ed tha t, ab sent a

n a bu se of dis cretion by

the trial court , the sen

tenc e m ay not be al tered on revi ew. Se e, e.g. , Peo ple v. Stacey , 19 3 Ill. 2d 203 , 20 9-1 0 (2 000 ); Pe o ple v. Ha us ch ild , 22 6 Il l . 2d 63, 90 ( 200 7). For
exam ple, a sente nc e w i thi n s tatutor y l i m i ts wi l l be de em ed exce ss i ve an d the re sul

t of an ab us e of di screti on b y the tri al cou rt wh ere the sente nc e i s g rea tl y at vari an cewi th th e s pi ri t an d pu rpos e of the l aw, or m an i f estl y di sproportionate to the

na ture of the of f en se. People v . Fer

n , 189 Ill . 2d 48, 54 ( 1999)
. Bec aus e def

endan t off ers n o evi den ce, a side f rom th e se nten ce i tself , that the tria l court fai le d to consider the mi

tigatin g evi dence we m

ay assum e that the tr ia

l c ourt properly

considered it. See Pe o ple v. Ja rr ell , 2 48 I ll. App. 3d 1 043 , 1 051 (1 993 ) ( a t rial co ur t need not ar t iculat e t he proces s by

whi ch i t determ i ne s the appropri ateness of a gi ven s en tenc e). Furthe

r, the re cord shows tha t the tri al court did not i

gnore m i tig ati ng f actors i n de f endan t’s f avor. The re cord shows tha t bef ore sen tenc i ng, th e tri al court read

the prese nten ce re port, whi ch i nc l uded f actors such a s the

def endan t’s pe rsonal history , educ ati on, an

d soci al en vi ronm en t. The tri al court consi de red de f en da nt’ s a gean d h i s p rior cr i m i na l hi story asa j uven

i l e, n oti ng tha t “ he ’s not ex actl y a novice i

n the sy stem , but n ot exactly a harden ed, l ongti me cri m i na l ei ther.” The court also c ons i de red

the serious ne ss

an d s en se l es s n

atu re of the cri me that re sul

ted f rom a q ue sti on abo ut gang involvement . Fo r t hese re aso ns, t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion by i m pos i ng a 5 0 y ea r s en ten ce , wh i ch wa s wi thi n th e s tatutor y l i m i ts th at c al l ed f or a s en ten ceof b etw een 45 yea rsan d l i f e i m pri son men t.1-08-0015

-24-

Defend ant also ar gue s t hat t he impos itio n of a 25 yea r se nt ence enhanc ement violat ed t he pr inciples ar t iculat ed in Apprendi v. New Jersey

, 53 0 U .S. 46 6, 1 47 L. Ed. 2d 43 5, 1 20 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), because the verdict f orm returned by

the jury did n ot contain a fi ndi ng that defend ant per so nally discharg ed a firear m dur ing t he o ffense. In Apprendi, the Su prem e Court he l d tha t the f acts th at i ncreas e the

pres cri be d pen al tie s f or an of f en se m ust b e su bm i tted to a ju

ry and prov en

beyond a reas onab l e doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 455, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63. In the in

stant case, based on Il

li nois Patt ern Jury

Instructions, Cri

mi nal , No. 7. 02 (4 t h ed. 200 0) , t he jur y was sp ecifically i nst ru ct ed t hat in or der t o find d efenda nt guilt y of t he
o ffen se o f fir st de gr ee mur de r , it wo uld ha ve t o find t ha t t he St at e p r o ve d b eyo nd a r ea so na ble dou b t: "Fi

rst: That t he def

endan t, o r one for whose conduct he is l egally responsi ble, pe r fo rmed t he ac t s w hic h c au se d t he de at h o f Br an do n Mc Cle lland by p er so na lly discha rg ing a firea rm t hat pr oximat ely cause s de at h; and Se co nd : T ha t wh en t he de fen da nt did so , he int en de d t o kill o rdo gr ea t bo dily harm t o B rand on Mc Clell and;
or he knew t hat his acts wo uld cau se de at h to Brand on Mc Clell and;
or h e k n ew th at h i s a cts crea ted a stron g p rob ab i l i

ty of de ath or gre at b odi

l y h ar m to Brandon McClel

lan d." The court further instructed t he j ury that “[i ]f y ou fi nd f rom y our co nsi deration of al

l the e vi dence1-08-0015

-25-

t hat eac h one of t hese pr op os itio ns has be en pr ove d beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt , yo u sho uld find the defendant guil

ty. If y ou fin d from y our consideration of all

the eviden

ce that any

one of these prop osi ti ons has n ot be en prov ed be yond a re as ona bl e doubt, y ou s hou l d f i nd the de f en da nt n ot gui l ty.” Afte r c ons ider ing t he evide nce t og et her wit h t hese instr uct ions a nd t he ar gument s by the par t ies, t he jur y ret ur ned a gene ra l verd ict finding d efenda nt guilt y of first deg re e mur der . T he record, i nc l udi ng th e ev i den ce, the i nstructi ons, a

nd th e si gne d ve rdict f orm, r ef l ects th at the j ury f oun d b ey ond a re as ona bl e doubt tha

t the de f en da nt p erf orm ed the ac ts th at c au se d the d ea

th of McClella nd by personally

dis chargi ng a fi rearm. Becaus e the i

nstructions provi

ded to t he j ury at defen dant’s trial

in cl ude the l anguage “

personally

dis chargi ng a f irearm ” and properly

articulated the facts that were required to be pro ven bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt in order to apply

the 25-yea

r extensi on to defen

dant’s sen tence, the enh

ancem ent did n ot violate Apprendi
. T his fin din g is co nsis t en t wit h t he pr inc iple s a r t icu lat ed by t he I llino is S up r eme Co ur t in Peo ple v. Ho pkins , 2 01 I ll. 2d 2 6 ( 200 2) . I n Ho pkins , the defen dant was sen

tenced to an extended term

in prison a fter bei ng conv icted of fi rst degree murder, arme d robbery , aggravated bat t er y, and home invas ion. In it s ana lysis, t he co ur t in Ho pkins noted that t he j ury returned a
ve rdi ct of gui l ty f or th e c ha rge d of f ense of ag gra va ted ba ttery an d th i s cha rge i nc l ude d the f

ac t of the v i cti m ’sage as an

elem en t of the off en se. Ho pkins , 20 1 Il

l . 2d at 3 9. A cc ordi ngl y , th e ageof th e v i cti m wa s a n el em en t prov en b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t wh i ch perm i tted th e tr i al cou rt to sen tenc e def endan t to an ex tended term

sen tenc e. Ho pkins , 201 Il

l . 2d at 39 -40. Simila r ly in t his c as e, t he fac t t ha t de fen da nt ca us ed Mc Cle lland ’s de at h w hile “ pe r so na lly1-08-0015

-26-

discha rg ing a firea rm” w as includ ed a s a fac t t hat t he inst ru ct ion r equ ired t he St at e t o p ro ve t o t he jury bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. In retur ni

ng i ts verdi ct fi

ndi ng def endan t guil ty of f irst degree murder, the j ury i

n the i nstant case f

ound bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt that defendan

t disch arged a f i rearm. A cc ordi

ngl y , th ere i s n o Apprendi

violat ion. III. CONCLUSION Fo r the f ore goi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e dec i si

on of th e tr i al cou rt. Af fi rmed. MUR PHY, P.J . and COL

EMA N, J., c oncu

r.