SECOND DIVISION FILED: Decem

ber 4, 2007 No. 1-04- 2894 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINO IS, Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. JAMES BANNISTER, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY No. 90 CR 1812
THE HONORABLE JAMES SCHREIE R, JUDGE PRESIDING. JU STI CEHO FFMA

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a j ur

y trial i n 19 91 , the def

en da n t, J am es Ba n n i ste r, was con v i cte d of two c oun ts of fi rst degree murder

and sen tenc ed to na

tural l i f e i m pri sonm en t. Hi s con vi cti ons a nd s en tenc e wer e aff irm ed on di rect rev i ew. P eopl e v. Yo ung , 263 Ill . App. 3d 627, 635 N.E.2d 473 ( 1994). He
su bse qu en t ly

sought relief un

der the Post- Convi

ction Heari

ng Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq . (West 1992) ), as se rti

ng, in ter alia , a ct ual innoc ence pr emised o n newly disco ver ed e vidence of t he
rec an tation of trial testi mon y ag ai n st h i m . Th e def en da n t’s postcon v i cti on peti ti on ini tial

ly was dis mi ssed w itho ut an evide nt iary hear ing o n t his que st ion. On ap pea l, t his co ur t re ver sed and
reman ded f or a n ev i den ti ar y h ea ri n g on th e rec an ta t io n is sue. See People v . Banni ster , No. 1- 97- 2876 (1998) (unpubl

is hed order un der Su prem e Court Ru

l e 23). F oll

owi ng th e ev i den tia ry heari ng, t he tria l courtgr ant ed t he de fendant ’s r equ est for po st co nvictio n re lief, vaca t ed his c onvict ions, and ordered a new t rial. T he de fendant was retried i n a b ench trial in 2004 and agai

n f ound guil ty of two
coun ts of f i rst deg ree m urder a nd s en tenc ed to na

tural l i f e i n pr i son. On app eal, t he de fendant chal le nges h is convi ctions, asse

rting that ( 1) his r et r ial vio lat ed his right to be f

ree from double j eopar dy, (2) he was deni ed due pro cess and depri ved of a f ai r trial basedNo. 1-04- 2894

2

upo n t he plea agr eement ent er ed int o be t wee n t he pr os ecu t ion and co -d efenda nt Michael Jo hnso n, (3) by ent er ing int o t he plea agr eement wit h Jo hnso n, t he St at e us ur ped t he Go ver nor ’s exc lusive right to pardon or co mm

ute sentences, (4) the tri

al courter r ed in a llo win g t he St at e t o pr o se cu t e h im under an i nd i ctm en t tha t al l eg edl y ha d b een ob tai ne d th roug h th e u se of per jure d t est imony, (5 ) t he trial co ur t er re d in per mitt ing t he St at e t o c all Deand a Wilson as a wi tne ss where W i l son ’s pri or incons iste nt t est imony

had b een fo un d t o be un t rut hfu l, ( 6) he wa s d ep r ive d o f du e p r o ce ss an d a fair t rial by cumulat ive err or , a nd ( 7) t he State f ail ed to prove

his gui l t bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. For the fol lowi ng reasons, we af

fi rm the def

endan t’s convi ction an d sentence
. To re sol v e th e iss ue s raise d on

appe al, i t i s n ec es sa r y to consider the facts an d procedural history of the d efendant’s prior prosecution. The def endan t was charged

with the Novem

ber 9, 1989,
m urders of Dan W il li am s and Th

omas K aufm an i n gan g-related sh

oot in gs near the Stateway

Gar dens hou sing compl

ex. Al so charged with the m

urders were co-defenda

nts, Jam es Young, Michael Meyers, Kev

in Young, Tho mas Car t er , E ric S mith, a nd Micha el Jo hnso n. The def endan ts were tried jo int ly by a j ur y, wi

th the exception of Mi

chael Johnson, wh

o was granted a severan

ce and trie d
se pa r at ely. The evidenc e pr ese nt ed a t t he co nso lidat ed t rials o f the defend ant and other c odefendan ts is sum mari zed as foll

ows. The sho ot ings o riginat ed fr om t he gr ou nd and fi rst-fl oor porches of the b

uil din g at 3517-3519 Sou th Fe deral Str eet. The shooters chase d Wi l l i ams toward a n Il l i noi s In sti tute of Te ch

nol ogy (IIT) research building acr os s t he st re et , w her e he s t umbled t o t he gr ou nd. Bo t h Will iams and Kau fman,
a se cu ri ty guard stationed i

nsi de the doors o f the IIT bui ldi ng, wereki

l l ed b y th e g un f i re . Th e S tate presented evi den ce i n s upport of i ts t he o ry t ha t Willia ms h ad be en sh o t , in a ca se o f mis t ak en id en t it y,No. 1-04- 2894

3

t o a venge t he se xual as sau lt o f co -d efenda nt Kevi n Young’s girl

fri end b y m em bers of a riv al street gan g, one of w hom wasal so na

med “ Wi l l i ams.” At t he joint trial

of the si x co-defen

dants, the only

direct evi dence agai nst the def

endan t was t he testi m ony of D ean da W i l son, w ho wa s the

n 12years old an d a me mb er of the Del

Viki ngs street ga n g. W i l son testi f i ed th at, on the ni gh t of the sh ooti ng , h e w aswi

th W i l l i e Si m s on the f i rs t-f l oor porchof 3519South Fede ral St re et whe

n h e s aw the de f en da nt a nd the si x c o-de f en da nts , al l of wh om were dres sed i n b l ack, a pproach the b uil di ng. The sev en i ndi vi dual s we re all members o f the Gangster Di sci

ple s street gang, a rival

of the Del

Viki ngs gan g. Acco rd ingto Wi

ls on, the defen

dant and co-defe

ndan t Eric Smi th arrived at t he buildi

ng fi rst and wai ted near a j ani

to r’s cl oset under the buildi

ng, at o ne po in t pa ss ing wit hin 1 0 fe et o f him. W i l son an

d S i m s th en wen t to the s ec on d- f

l oor p orc h

wh ere W i l son sa w th re e c o-d ef

en da n ts st anding be l ow h

i m i n f ron t of the bu i l di ng an d two c o-de f

en da nts sta nd i ng on th e f i rs t-f l oorporch of a co nnect ed bu ilding. Will iams was ne ar a play lot in front of t he building when someone ca

ll ed
o ut t o him. Fo llowing a ve rba l exchang e, all seven men, i nc l udi ng the de f en da nt, ste ppe d out f

rom t he ir posi tions an d f i red at W i l l i ams, wh

o stum bl ed toward the IIT buil

din g and f ell b etween

its doo rs. W ils on was cross-exam

in ed regardin

g certain a ll eged i nconsistencies i

n hi s testim ony, suc h as wh ether t he shooters were weari

ng m asks ove r t heir fac es a nd whe t her he co uld ac t ually see t he de fendant
and Sm i th f rom h i s van tage poi nt. Several othe r wi tne ss escorr

obor ated ce r t ain as pe ct s o f Wilso n’s t es t imo ny, inc lud ing his
ve rs i on of how Wi

ll ia ms was chased and s

hot by s everal

me n befo re he fell near t he doors of the IIT buildingand Wilso n’s de scr ipt ion o f the sho o t er s’ da rk c lo t hing an d t he man ne rin which t hey left t heNo. 1-04- 2894

4

scene. In a ddit ion, Denise Bra dy and R ut h W i lson, Deanda’s mot her, co rro bora ted Wilson’s i den tif i cation of co-def endan ts Ke vi n Y oung a

nd Th omas Ca rter. The defen dant presented an a

li bi defen se, calli ng f our witnesses

who testif

ie d that he was at ho me at t he t ime of t he sho ot ing. At th e c on cl us i on of th e tr i al, the j ur y f oun d th e def en da n t gui l ty of two co unt s o f firs t de gr ee mur de r, and he w as se nt enc ed t o lifeim prisonment. T he defendant’s
conv i cti ons a nd s en tenc e wer e af f i rmed on di rect ap peal
. Yo ung , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 627. In April 1993, the def

en da nt fi le d a pro se pet itio n for po st co nvictio n re lief i n which he requesteda new t rial, a nd a s upp lementa l pet itio n w as f iled b y cou nsel in July 199 5. The suppl em ental petition raised several i

ssues, i ncl udin g actual i nnocen ce base d on newl

y di scovered evi dence of Wilson’ s re cant at ion o f his tr ial tes t imony im plicat ing t he def

endan t. Th e p ostc onv

i cti on pe ti ti on wa s s upp orted by the af f i da vi t of W i l son, wh

o att est ed that he was 15 y ears old an

d a
mem ber of th e Gan gster D i sci

pl es. In hi s af fi davi t, Wilson recanted

his tr ial tes t imony in which he ide ntif ie d the defendant as one of the shoo ters he saw o n Novemb er 9, 19 89. Wilso n also gave a court -report ed statement i n wh ic h he stated t hat he h

ad seen s even

peo ple involved in the s hoo t ing butco uld p os itively ident ify only fou r. Acco rd ing t o Wilso n’s st at ement , a ltho ugh he had i dentif ie d
seven sho o t er s a t t he co - de fen da nt s’ jo int t r ial, he wa s no t ce r t ain abo ut t he iden tity of three of tho se people, in

cl udin g the defe

ndan t. He did see two people standi ng unde r the buildi

ng, as he had testifi ed at tr ia l, b ut he w as una ble t o ide nt ify them b ecause they

were weari

ng m asks. Wi ls on further attest ed that when h

e went to t he polic e st at ion, a de t ect ivesho wed him pictu re s o f seven men, and those were the people h

e said were in

volv ed i n the sh oot in g. Wils on cl ai

me d that before he testi fi

edNo. 1-04- 2894

5

at t rial, he t old bot h a de t ect ive and a n assist ant st at e’s a t t or ney tha t he wa s no t cer t ain abo ut t he i den tity of a l l sev en of the sh ooters. Th e court i

ni tia l l y di sm i sse d the peti tion wi thout cond

ucti ng a n evi den tia ry he ari n g on th e issue of W

il son’s recantat ion. In so rul i ng, th e court fou nd t hat t he r eca nt at ion wa s unr eliable and
un t rus t wo r t hy. The court part ic ula rly noted that, si

nce trial , Wils on had

swit ched allegiance t o t he GangsterD isci

ples, the st reet gang t o which the defendant belonged. I n denyi ng the de fendant’s request f or postcon

vi cti on r el i ef base d on i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of counsel , the trial

judge remarked, “a s I lo o k b ac k, I be lieve I wo uld have found [the def endan t] not guil ty i n a b ench trial * * * [the] [j ]ury thou gh t ot h erwise * * * I don’t t hi nk [defense counsel ’s decis ion not to call two witnesses]
am ounts to i nc omp etence.” In de ny i ng the de f en da nt’ s m oti on to rec ons i der th e di sm

i ss al of hi s p ostc onv

i cti on pet itio n, the trial judge stated, “I repeat this is a di f

f i cu l t si tuati on for m

e becaus e i

t’s one of the f

ew tim es i n 20 years I ever disag re ed w ith a ju ry’s ver dict on a particular defen dant * * * had i

t been
a bench t rial[, ] I wo uld have fou nd [ t he de fe nd an t ] no t gu ilt y, gi ve n th e i denti f i ca ti on and his al i bi . But i t was f or the j ury to decide. T he y co uld ha ve r ea so na bly fo un d h im gu ilt y, * * * t her e is no t hing und er t he law * * * t hat wo uld r equ ire me t o c hange t he resul t brought about by

the jury.” Onappe al fro m the d ismissal o f the defend ant ’s po st co nvictio n pet itio n, t his co ur t re ver sed and
reman ded, holdi ng that t he cir cu it cou

rt sh oul d have c ond

uc ted an ev i denti ary he ari ng on th e q ue sti on of W i l son ’s re ca n tati on of h i s tr i al testi mon y i m pl i ca ti n g th e def en da n t.No. 1-04- 2894

6

On rem and, the ci

rcuit court co nducted an ev ide ntiary heari ng an d found that, wi

th respect to the de fendant and co -defendant Smi th, Wilson’s trial

testim ony was not acc ur at e and t ru t hful and that t he r e w as no co rr o bo r at io n fo rhis impli cat ion o f the defend ant and S mith in the sho ot ing. T he courtconcl

uded that, as t o t he de fen da nt an d c o - de fen da nt Smit h, t he o ut co me o f t he t r ial “w o uld pr o ba bly have been

dif feren t if not for Wils on’s perj ured testim ony.” Ac cordi

ngl y , the c ourt granted t he de f en da nt’ s p ostc onv

i cti on petition reques

ting a new trial , vacated hi s convi

ctions an d sentence , setbond , a nd

re manded t he de fendant t o t he cu st od y of t he Co ok Co unt y Sher iff pend ing re t rial. T he defend ant su bse qu en t ly

fil ed mult iple disco ver y req ues t s and demand s for t rial. T he defen dant was
r et r ied by t he co ur t af

t er wa ivin g h is r ig ht t o a ju ry. In t he sec ond t rial, t he St at e pr ese nt ed t he t est imony of co -d efenda nt Jo hnso n, w ho had b een tr ie d se pa rate l y , con vi cte d of both m urders , an

d s en ten ce d to natu

ral l i f e i m prison men t. Joh nso n acknowledged

t hat he h ad co nse nt ed t o t es t ify agains t th e def en da n t as pa rt of a p l ea ag re em en t wi th t he State . Un

de r th e terms of

th e p l ea ag re em en t, J oh n son prom i se d to testify

trut hf ull y i n exchan ge f ort he St at e’s p ro mise to move fo r va cat ur of his t wo murd er co nvictio ns and sent ence, accep t a gui l ty plea on one c ount of

m urder, no lle prosequi

t he o t her murd er char ge, and r eco mmend t hat t he courti m pose a sen tenc e of 60 y ears ’ i m pri s onme nt on the si

ngle m urder conviction. The pl ea agr eement al so provided that Joh ns on pr o mise d t o t es t ify in a ma nne rt ha t wa s c o nsis t en t wit h his pri orst at eme nt s t o po lice an d t o pr o se cu t o r s, bu t t he ag r ee men t wo uld be r en de r ed nu ll and vo id if
an y of the repres en tations con tai ne d i n J ohn son ’s pri orsta tem en ts, u pon whi ch the agreem

ent was predica ted, were f ound to b e f

al se. The agr eement , w hich was signed by Johns on, his at t or ney, a nd two as sist ant st at e’ s a t t o rn eys, also pr o vide d t hat it wa s s ubje ct t o t he a pp ro val o f t he t r ia l courtNo. 1-04- 2894

7

judge
. In ad dit io n, Jo hnso n t es t ified t hat he h ad as ke d t o be t ra nsfe rr ed fr om t he super m

axi mum se cu ri ty f aci li ty i n wh i ch h e h ad b een i n ca rc erate d a

n d th at th e S tate h ad prom i se d to req

ue st a transfer to adi ffe r en t pe nit en t iar y, but Jo hnso n unde rst oo d t hat dec ision wa s co mplet ely within t he discretion of the Ill

in ois Department o f Correct ions. Joh ns on further testif

ie d that in 1989, he had b een a m

em ber of the Gan

gsterDis ci

ple s street gang for approxim

ately 10 ye ars. On the eveni

ng of Novem

ber 9, 1989, he wa s wa lking t hro ugh t he St at eway Gar dens hou sing co mplex wit h James Y ou ng and Michael Me yers w hen t hey met t he d efen dant, Eric Sm

ith, Thom as Carter, and Kev

in Young near the b

uil din g at 3651 So uth Federal Str eet. All seven men went up st air s t o ap ar t men t 30 9, wh ich wa s t he ho me o f T iya Y o un g, Ke vin You ng’s ni

ece . The re, the y tal ked f or about an

hour, d i scu ssi ng a plan to shoot mem

bers of the Del Viki ngsstr eet gang in revenge for t he previous sexua l assault of A.W., w ho was Kevin Young’s gi rl f ri end. Af ter this dis cus si

on , the g rou p l ef t th e a pa rtm en t an d w en t to 36 18 Sou

th Fe deral Str eet. At that t im

e, all seven me n were a rmed with gun

s. Johnson testi fi

ed that he had a .25-cal

ib er automatic, and the def

endan t had a .357-cali

ber re volver . Whe n t he gr ou p ar rived at t he se co nd bui ldi ng, they encountered a m

an kn own as “R

ic k Jam es,” who gr eet ed t he de fen da nt by his ni cknam e. Kevi n Young sh

ot at “Rick Jam

es,” and then

all s even me n ran to the bui

ldi ng at 3547- 3549 So ut h Federal St reet , where they waited for about 20 min ut es before r etu rning to T iy a Yo ung’s apart men t. There, t he group t alked and sm oked for 45 to 60 mi

nutes. A f ter l ea v i n g Ti ya Y oun g’ s a pa rtm en t, the g rou p w al ke d to 36 17 Sou

th Fede ra l St re et and encountered

Daniel Nicho lson, who was in a whee lchair. Jo hnso n st at ed he stood on the f i rs t-f l oorNo. 1-04- 2894

8

porchwit h Car t er and t he defen dant whi le Kev in Young, Smi

th, Meye rs, and Jam

es Young f

oll owed Ni ch ol son i nto th e h al l wa y . Al l seve n m en ha d thei r gu ns out wh i l e K ev i n Youn g rob be d N i ch ol son of some gold chai

ns an d ot her i tems. Af ter ro bbi ng Ni chol son, the group walke d no rt h t o t he buildingat 3547-3549 So uth Federal Street . Johnson testif

ie d that he then told the others that he was go ingupstairs to hi s apartmen t t o get a ski m

ask and s ome “

wave” ca ps, whi ch are l ike s ca rves. Af ter retrievi

ng the ski mas k a nd ca ps , he r ejo ine d t he o t he r s, ga ve ca ps t o Ke vin Young an

d Car ter, and ke pt a s ki mas k fo r h imself. The reaf ter, t he se ven men wa lked t og et her t o t he bui ldi ng l ocated at 3517-3519 So uth Federal Str eet. Acco rd ing t o J ohn so n, he an d Mey ers wal ked to t he si

de of the bui

ldi ng ne ar the back ha llw ay. Smi

th, Kevi n Young, and Carter stoo d in the breezeway

beh in d an area ref

erred to as t he “m ail box .” The

def endan t and Jam es Y oung s

tood on the 35 19 si

de of the b uil di ng. Joh ns on stated th at, at that t im

e, he was wea

rin g a ski mask, and Mey

ers was weari

ng a “ wave” c ap. As h e an d Mey ers wal ked through the back h

allwa y, they me t Grego ry Gordon, Wi

ll ie Sim s, and two women wh o were

stan di ng n ear the el ev ators. They

al so sa w Den i se B rady , An toin ette Barr y, and Jo e Jo hns o n, wh o we r e c o ming o ut o f t he st air wa y. Joh ns on t est ifi ed t hat he t hen h ea

rd Sm i thsay, “come h

ere, mother *** .” Afte r he ar ing guns hot s, he walke d wit h Meyer s t o t he fro nt of t he buildingto se e w ha t wa s h appeni ng . Joh ns on stated that he saw W

il li am s runn in g wh il e the def endan t, Smith, Carter, Kev

in Young, and Jam

es Y ou ng were fi

rin g their guns at hi

m. K evi n Young stood behi

nd the “ ma il box,” j ust inside th e br ee ze wa y, wit h Smith a nd Ca rt er . T he defend ant and Jam es Young were on the ram p from the 3519 side of t he building. The defend ant , Ja mes Yo ung, Kevin Yo ung, Smith, and Ca rter ste ppe d out f romNo. 1-04- 2894

9

un dernea th t he building while sho ot ingat Wil li ams. Jo hnso n t est ifi

ed t hat he sho t at Will

iams as he ran to a play

lot, jum ped the fe nce, an d ran toward the IIT buil

din g. Acco rd ingto J oh

n son , w h en th e sh ooti

n g ev en tu all y s to pped, he picked up a .25-cali ber
au t o mat ic s he ll ca sing fr o m his g un an d p ut it in his pocket. Al l s even of the sh oot ers then

wen t to an ap ar t ment in t he building at 3547 So uth Federal Street and wai

ted a few m

in utes until the police left the area. Jo hnso n st at ed t hat he t hen we nt wit h Meyer s, J ames Y ou ng, Kevin Yo ung, Car t er , a nd the defe ndan t t o an apartmen

t in an ot her bui ldi ng, but Smith d ro ve aw ay in a car . Aft er abo ut five mi nutes, the remai

ni ng m em bers of the group l ef

t the ap artm en t, an d he w en t to the hom e of h i s a un t. Ab out a week later, he sold the gun that he had used i

n the sh oot in g. Johnso n’s t es t imo ny w as su bs t an t iall y con siste nt w i th th e s tate men

t he ga ve the pol i ceon Decem ber 29 , 19 89 , t he da y aft er his a rr est . Jo hnso n ack now ledge d t hat he initially denied any invo lvement in

the shootings an

d, prior to hi s 1991 trial , he had m oved to suppress hi s statem ent , asse rt ingt hat he h ad no t bee n ad vise d o f his c o nst it ut io nal r ight s be fo re being qu est ioned . At t he
re t rial o f the de fen da nt , Jo hns o n t es t ified t ha t t he ba sis fo rhis motion to suppress had b een un true because he h

ad been advi sed of h

is righ ts prior to giv

in g the stat emen

t. The defendan

t cro ssexam in ed Joh ns on as to th

e s pe cif i c terms of

the plea agree men t an d h i s m oti va ti on f oren ter i n g i n to th e a gr eemen t. Dani el Nic hols on testifi

ed that he had b een conf in ed to a wheelch

air sin ce 19 81 a

nd , on Novem ber 9, 1989 , he

wasvisi tin g hi s si ster wh o li ve d i n Stateway

Garde ns . Betwe en

9 an d 10 p.m ., he l ef t h i s s i ste r’ s a pa rtm en t an d w en t to vi si t A .W . a t 3 617 Sout h Feder al St re et . While wait ing
o utside, h e s aw

Kev i n You n g, C ar ter , J am es You n g, S m i th , M ey er s, Joh n son , a n d th e de fendant
.No. 1-04- 2894

10

All seve n men pulled g uns, and Ke vin You ng and Me yer s r o bbe d h im o f t hr ee go ld chains, a wa t ch, and t wo dia mo nd r in gs . Af terward, Smith told h

im to jus t ro ll down the ramp a

nd not look back. Ni ch ol son sta ted th at, as he was le avi

ng, he s aw Wi

ll ia ms and told hi

m that he had j ust been robb ed and that W

i l l i ams sh oul d go to the f

ront of the b uil di ng. De sp i te his war ning, Willi

ams wa lked t o t he back o f t he bu ild ing
. As he wa s g o ing up t he r amp o f his sis t er ’s bu ild ing , he he ar d s o meo ne sa y, “[c]atch that mother *** .” Lo o kin g b ac kw ar d, he sa w t ha t Williams wa s r un ning fr o m se ve r al p eo ple who were chas in

g hi m. He al so heard several gun

shots and saw f

lashes of gunf ire. Gregory Go rd on t est ifi

ed t hat in Nove mber o f 198 9, he lived in St at ewa y Gard ens at 3517- 3519 South F edera

l Street. Be

tween 9 an d 10 p.m . on Nov em ber 9 , 19 89, he

wa s wi th a pers on known as “Big Will.” As t he t wo men st oo d nea r t he gr ou nd- floo r e levat or s o n t he 35 17 s ide o f the bui ldi ng, they saw sev en men , al l of w hom were dr esse d in dar k clo t hing, w alk int o t he ha l l wa y of t he bui ldi ng. Some of the

me n ha d ban danas or scarve s over

t he ir face s. G or do n st at ed t hat he recognized

Meyer s, J ohns on, Car t er , S mith, a nd Kevin Yo ung, all of who m wer e ho ldingguns in t he ir hands. While he pr esse d t he eleva t or but t on, he hea rd so meone say, “[c]ome h ere, mother *** ,” and
seve ra l gunsho t s. Whe n t he eleva t or do or s o pene d, he got in side along wi

th “Big Will,” t wo girls, and an ot her guy . In the elevator, he heard another vol le y of gunsh ot s bef ore he got o ff

on the 10 th f l oor. Accordin

g to Gordo n, he then

walke d t o t he ed ge o f the po rc h and lo ok ed d ow n, wher e he
saw som eone crawl i ng on the g round ne ar the IIT bui ldi ng. He t hen loo ked ove r t he po rc h on t he ot her side o f the building and saw seve n me n wal kin g in a lin e toward t he b

uil din g at 3547-3549 Sou th Fe de r al S t r ee t . Go r do n t es t ified t ha t he su bse qu en t ly viewed poli

ce photo graphs an

d ide ntif ie d Ke vin Yo ung, Smith, Car t er , Me yers, and J ohns on a s five of t he se ven men he ha d se en o n t he nightNo. 1-04- 2894

11

of the s hoot in

gs. He al so iden

tif ie d photo graphs of the de fen dant and Jam

es Young as people h e recognized from

the nei ghborhood, but he was un ab le t o st at e s pe cific ally that the y were mem bers of that group. Gord on acknowledged that on August 29, 1990, he signe d a s t at ement exo ner at ing Smith, but he ex pla in ed that he was coerced i

nto do in g so. Gor don testifi

ed t hat he fear ed fo r his life and
was for ced t o g ivethat stat em ent by Dem etrius Jackson, who ha

d a gun an

d whom h e bel ie ved was
a mem ber of the Gangster Discipl es. The Stat e al so call

ed Deanda W

il son, who was then s ervi

ng a sen tence f o r mur de r ina Mi n n es ota prison . Wi l son

deni ed seei ng the sh oot in gs of W il li am s and K

aufm an at all. W

il son stated that he was a

t a compl etely

dif feren t buil din g and knew not hi ng of

the m urders unti l he he ard gunshots. Wi

l son tes tif i ed that he l ooked out of a

wi ndow af ter the s hooti ng was a l l over, and he did not see any of the sh oot ers. The prosecution i

ntroduced Wil

son’s pri or incons is

tent stat em

ents m ade dur ing his te st imony

at t he defendant’s f

i rst tri al , John

son’ s tri al , and duri

ng th e proce edi

ngs be f ore t he gr and jur y. Wilson ad mitt ed t hat he had pr eviou sly tes t ifi ed t hat t he defend ant was pr ese nt at t he
scene a nd sh ot at Will ia ms , but stat ed that those stat em ents were untrue. As in his fi

rst t rial, t he de fendant aga in pre sent ed a n alibi defen se and ca ll ed several witne sses who testified t hat he w as at ho me o n t he n ight o f t he s ho o t ings . U po n co nsid er at io n o f all o f t h e evi dence pr es en ted , the c our

t f oun d th e def en da n t gui l ty on b oth cou n ts of first deg re e mur der . T he defend ant su bse qu en t ly

f i l ed pos t-trial moti ons f or a n ew tri al an d f oracqui tt al and di sm is sal based
on do ub le- jeo pa r dy v io la

t i on s. The c our

t den i ed th es e m oti on s a n d s en ten ce d th e def en da n t to natural l if e i n pri son. The def

endan t has appeal

ed hi s convi

ctions an d sentence
.No. 1-04- 2894

12

We ini tiall y address t he defendant’s argumen t t hat hi s retrial

vi olated hi s constitutional guarantees agains

t dou b l e j eop ardy . Th

e S tate responds that the defen

dant has f orfei ted this issue on r ev iew by fa iling t o t imely ra ise it in t he t rial co ur t and by r eq ue st ing t ha t t he co ur t gr an t him a
new t r ial fol lowi

ng po stconviction rel

ie f. The State als o asserts that, even if this is sue had b een preserved for review, retrial

of the def

endan t wa s prop er . We a

gr ee wi th th e S tate

on b oth pro positions. The Uni ted St ates and Illi

nois constitut ions pr o vid e t ha t no pe r so n sh all be t wic e p ut in je opardy f or the s am

e of f en se. U .S. Con st., am

end. V; Ill . Cons

t. 1970, a

rt. I, sec . 10. The constitutional

guarantee agai

nst doubl e j eopardy f

orbids a second, or successi

ve, trial for the pur pose of aff ording the pro sec ut ion a nother o ppor tunity to supply ev iden ce it fai led to muster in the fi

rst proceedin g. People v . Oli

vera , 164 Ill . 2d 382, 393, 647 N.E.2d 926 (1995), ci ting Burks v. Uni

ted Stat es , 43 7 U .S. 1, 1 1, 9 8 S . C t. 2 14 1 ( 19 78 ). A l th oug h th e g ua ra n tee ag ai n st d oubleje o pardy preclude s the State

f rom r etry i ng a def endan t af ter a reviewi ng court has determi

ned that t he ev

ide nce intr od uce d at t rial was legally insuffi cient t o c onvict , t he double j eopar dy cl ause does not preclude retrial of a def endan t whose conv i cti on has b een

set as i de b eca

use of a n error i n the proce edi

ngs leading to the con

vi cti on. Oli vera , 164 Ill . 2d at 393, citing Peo ple v. Mink , 141 Ill . 2d 163, 173-74, 565 N.E.2d 9 75 (19 90). I n a dd it io n , retrial i s p er m i tted ev en th oug h ev i den ce i s i n suf f i ci en t to
su st ain a v er di ct o nc e e rr o ne o us ly a dm i tted e vi denc e h asbe en di sc oun ted , an d, f or pu rpos esof do ub le jeo pa r dy, all evidenc e su bmitt ed a t t he o riginal t rial may beco nsider ed w hen de t er mini ng t he suf fi ci ency of the ev i den ce. Oli vera , 164 Ill . 2dat 393, ci ting Lockhart v . Ne l son, 488 U.S. 33, 40, 109 S. Ct . 28 5 (1 988 ); People v . Av ery, 180 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 14 6, 157, 5 34 N.E.2 d 1296 (1989 ).No. 1-04- 2894

13

It is fi rml y e stablis hed that the constitutional ri gh t to no t be t wic e p ut in jeo pa r dy fo rt he sa me offense i s a p erson

al pri vi l ege w hi ch may be f orfe i ted. People v . Scales , 18 Il l .2d 283 , 2 85, 164 N.E.2d 76 ( 196 0); People v . Dieterm an , 243 Ill . Ap

p. 3d 83 8, 843, 6 13 N.E.2 d 298 ( 1993)
. Wh ere a new trial is granted on the defe

ndan t’s request, t hat

is, in itse lf, not a bar t o a sec ond t rial o n t he
sam e or am ended i ndi ctmen t. People v . Placek , 184 Il l . 2d 370 , 377, 70 4 N.E.2d 393 (1 998). The de fen da nt ca nno t , by his own conduct, avoid the j eopardy on wh ic h he stands an d then assert it as
a b ar to sub seq

uen t je opardy
. Plac ek , 1 84 I ll. 2d a t 377 . T he r ight has be en fo rfeit ed w he re th e accused seeks an d obtains a new tria

l, or wher e he do es not raise the de fen se of f ormer j eopardy be f ore j udgm

en t in the tri al court. Scal es , 18 Il

l . 2d at 28 5-86. In this case, the def

endan t specif ic ally requested ane w t r ial in h is post convicti on pet itions, and he di d n ot obje ct to the trial

court ’s decisi on to set bond and h old hi m f or ret rial follow ing t he gr ant of postcon v i cti on re l i ef . In f act, the rec ord

demon strate s th

at, aft er his first co nvictio ns were vacated, t he de fendant affirmatively demand ed a new t rial o n mor e t han o ne o cca sion. The defend ant did not r aise

his d o ub le-

jeo pa r dy c laim u nt il he f

iled po st - t r ial mo t io ns a ft er t he t r ial c o ur t ha d a ga in entered judg ments of c onvict ion o n re t rial. T hus, he ha s, by his own con duc t, f orf ei ted the i ss ueof double je opardy on appeal . See Scal es , 18 Ill .2d at 285-86. The defendan

t seeks t o avoid this res ult by r elying o n c er t ain r ema rks mad e b y t he cir cu it courtduri ng th e postcon vi cti on proce edi

ngs . He co nt ends t hat t hese co mments c ons t itu t ed a finding by t he co ur t t hat t he pr os ecu t ion had failed t o p re sent sufficient evi dence at the def

endan t’s fi rst t rial to support his conv

iction. We f

in d this contention i s refuted by

the record.No. 1-04- 2894

14

In pa r t icu lar, the d efenda nt re fers t o t he dismissal o f his pos t co nvictio n pet itio n wher e t he courtst at ed , “a s I lo o k b ac k, I be lieve I wo uld have found [the def endan t] not guil ty i n a b ench trial * * * [the] [j ]ury

th oug h t oth er wise * * * Idon ’t t

h i n k [ de f ense cou n se l ’s de cisi on n ot to call two witnesses] amou nt s t o inco mpet ence .” Also, in denying t he de fend an t’s m oti ont o r eco nsider t he dis mi ssal of his postconviction petition, the trial judge stated, “I repeat this is a di ff

ic ult si tuation for m

e becaus e i

t’s one of the few ti

me s i n 20 years I ev er d i sa gre ed wi th a j ury ’s ve rdi ct on a p ar t icu lar de fen da nt * * * h ad it been
a bench trial [,] I wo uld have fou nd [ t he de fendant ] no t guilt y, given t he i denti f i ca ti on and his al i bi
. Bu t it wa s fo rt he jur y t o de cid e. T he y co uld ha ve r ea so na bly fo un d h im gu ilt y, * * * t her e is no t hingunder t he law I feel t hat wo uld r equ ire me t o c hange t he
resu l t brough t about by the j ury .” The defendant misconstr ues t he cou rt ’s de term i na ti on a nd rel i eson certa in isolated r emarks, taken out of context, to support his argum ent that the court found a l ack of suf fi ci ent evi de nce t o convi ct at t he firs t t r ial. Yet, it is cl ear that the court ’s com

me nts, considered in

their en tirety, ref le ct t he opposite conclus ion. The trial judge spe cifically

fou nd t hat , a ltho ugh he might ha ve fo und t he defend ant not guil

ty, the j ury thought otherwise, and t he determi nation of the defe ndan t’s guil t was f orthe jury

to deci de. In addi

tion, the court found that t he j ury co uld have r eas ona bly f ou nd t he defend ant guilt y and

t hat t her e wa s no t hing und er t he law t hat wo uld co mpel a differe nt re sult . T he trial court ’s rem

arks dem onstrate t hat the court did not mak e a f ac tu al det er minatio n t hat t he pr o se cu t io n ha d p r es en t ed insu fficie nt ev ide nc e t o su pp o r t t he de fen da nt ’s gu ilt at t he firs t t r ial.No. 1-04- 2894

15

Here, po st co nvic t io n r elie f wa s g r an t ed ba se d o n Wils o n’s r ec an t at io n o f his pr evi ous testi m on y an d n ot b as ed on a l ack of suf f i ci en t ev i den ce to conv i ct. The ref ore, retrial

wasproper, and all the evidenc e su bmitt ed a t t he o riginal t rial may be co nsider ed w hen de t er mini ng the suf fi ci ency of the evi dence. See Oli

ve ra , 164 Ill . 2d at 393, ci

ting Lockh

art , 488 U.S . at 40; Av

ery, 180 Ill . App. 3d a t 157 . Up on

co nsider at ion o f the evidenc e ad duc ed a t t he f i rs t tri al , i nc l udi ng the tes ti mony of Wilson, we agree wi

th the trial

cou rt’ s determ

i na ti on t hat t he pr os ecu t ion had pr ese nt ed s ufficient
ev i den ce to sup po rt defend ant ’s co nvictio ns. Ac co rd ingly, the de fen da nt ’s se co nd pr o se cu t io n d id
no t vio lat e h is r ig ht t o be fr ee fr o m d o ub le je o pa r dy. W e n ex t con si de r th e def

en da nt’ s c onte nti on t hat he wa s de pr ived o f due pr oc ess a nd a fa ir t rial base d up on t he ple a agreem ent entered i

nto between

the prosecu

tion and Joh ns on. In supp ort
o f t his argumen

t, t he def endan t relies upon the f

act that t he pl

ea agreem

ent provided

tha t Joh ns on wo uld test if

y consistently wi

th his pri or st atements to police an

d pro secuto rs. Whether a d efendant’s constitutional

righ ts are vi olated by

a consi stency

pr ovisio n in a witne ss’ p lea ag re ement is an i ssue of fi rst im pression in

Ill in ois. Ho wev er, ot her states have considered the question an d hel d that consi stency

pr o visio ns a r e p er miss ible wh ere they areaccompanied by

terms that require the witness’ testim ony to be truthful . We f

in d the reasoni

ng of thes e cases to be i

nstructive here. In Stat e v. Bolde

n , 9 79 S .W. 2d 5 87 ( 199 8) , t he de fendant and a co -d efenda nt were charged wi th f i rst deg ree m urder. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 589. T he co-def en da nt t es t if

ied ag ainst t he defend ant pu

rsua n t to a p l ea

ag re em en t re qui ri n g th at h e te sti f y tr ut hfu ll y as to t he defendant’s involvement i

n the m urder, i n ac corda n ce wi th a pr ior st at ement he had given t o a law enfo rc ement off i cer. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 58 9. T he de fen da nt ap pe ale d h is convi ction, argui

ng that he h

ad beenNo. 1-04- 2894

16

deni ed hi s righ t t o due pro cess and a fair tr ial because t he co- defendant’s ple a a gr ee men t r eq uir ed him to testif y to speci f i c f acts. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 590. The Su pr eme Court of Tenn essee h el d that part ic

ula r testimony

of a wi tness asa c ond

i ti on of a plea agreemen

t is not a violation of due process so l on g a s the t est imony is requ ired t o be t rut hfu l. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 591-92, ci ting Sta te v . B urch

ett , 2 24 N eb. 444, 399 N.W.2d 258, 266-67 (19 86) ; State v. C l ark , 48 Wash . App. 850, 743 P.2d 822, 828 -29 (19 87) ; Sheri ff , Humb oldt Cou n ty v. Acuna , 10 7 N ev . 66 4, 81 9 P
. 2d 19 7, 20 0- 01 ( 19 91 )
. T he co ur t o bse rve d t ha t “ ‘it is o nly wh erethe pros ec ution has

bargai ned f or fal se or specif

ic testim ony, or a specifi

c resul t, t hat an
acco mpl ice’stestim

ony i s so tainted as to require
... preclusi on.’ ” Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 591, quo t ing Bu

rc h ett , 224 Neb. at 456, 39 9 N.W .2d at 26 6-67. The c our t disti n gui sh ed on th ei r f acts
casesin whi ch the pl ea agree men t req ui red onl y tha t the wi tne ss tes ti f y i n a pa rticul ar f ashi on or t hat t he testim ony producea sp eci

f i c res ul t, wi thout rega

rd to the truth f

ul ne ss of the testim

ony . Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 592 n.3, citin g Pe o ple v. Me dina , 41 Cal. A pp. 3d 438, 455, 116 Cal . Rptr. 133, 141 (19 74) ; People v . Green , 102 C al . Ap p. 2d 83 1, 832- 39, 228 P.2d 86 7, 868- 72 (19 51). The Bolden

court noted that because the pl ea agreem ent specifi cally required the co -de fendant to t es t ify trut hf ull y, that condi

tion “n ecessari ly engul fed” the other t erms

in the agreem

ent, which was “h in ged upon trut hf

ul testi mony .” Bolden , 979 S.W .2d at 5 92. Th e c ourt h

el d that the c odefendant’s tes ti

m ony di d n ot violate t he defen

dant’s rights to due pro cess and a f ai r trial even though it had b een i

nduced b y a ple a a gre em

en t tha t req ui red truth f ul ne ss an d c ons i stenc

y wi th a pri or statem en t. Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 593.No. 1-04- 2894

17

The Cou rt of A ppe als of Michigan r eac hed t he sa me res ult in Peo ple v. Jones , 236 Mich . App. 396, 60 0 N
. W. 2d 65 2 ( 19 99 ) , wh er e it up he ld im mun ity agreem ents that provided that the wi tnesses h ad pr ev i ous l y gi v en tru th f ul sta tem en ts to police co ncer ning t he mur der wit h which t he de fendant
wa s c ha r ge d a nd wo uld t es t ify t rut hfu lly at tria l
. Jones , 236 Mi ch. App. at 406-08, 600 N.W.2d at 656-57. The c our

t ob se rved th at a l th oug h th e i m m un i ty agreem ents m ay prov i desom e i nc en ti ve f or t he wit nesse s t o c onfo rm t heir t rial t est imony t o t he i r pr i or ac cou nts of the i nc i dent, the

y di d n ot
v i ol ate the defe ndan t’s righ ts where the prosecution ex pressl y c onditioned

i ts g ran ts of i m m un i ty on t he prom i ses that the wi tnes ses would provi de truth f

ul testi mony . Jones , 236 Mi ch. App. at 406, 600 N. W.2 d at 657 . T he Jones cou rt c on cl uded th at w h en a p ros ecutor

makes th e dec i si

on to ba r ga in wi th a w i tne ss on t he bas is of r epr ese nt at ions mad e by the witne ss duri ng ne got ia

tions wi th the Stat e, it i s rea son

ab l e f or th e p ros ecutor

to re l y on th e wi tn e ss’ ass erti on tha

t such repre sen tations are trut hf ul an d to ex pe ct th at th e wi tn es s’ trial

testi mon y wou l d b e e ss en

ti al l y con siste n t wi th t he origi nal i nf orm ati on upon whi ch the State’s promi se of l eni ency was i nduced. Jones , 236 Mi ch. App. at 407, 600 N. W.2 d at 657 , c iting Acuna , 107 N ev . at 668, 8 19 P.2d at 199. In Ar

izona v. R i ve ra, 21 0 Ari z. 18 8, 1 09 P.3 d 8 3 ( 20 05 ), two ac com pl i ce s te sti f i ed ag ai n st th e def en da n t pu rsua n t to s ep arate ple a agr eement s pr ovid ing t hat eac h acc omp lice avo wed t hat t he infor matio n she ha d pr ovid ed d ur ing
a pr et r ia l i

nterview wi

th prosecuto rs was a com ple te, accurate, and truthful

account of the even

t s sur ro unding the m

urder. Ri ve ra , 210 Ariz. at 189, 109 P.3d at 84. In a ddit ion, eac h plea a gr eement provided that t he accom

pli ce understood and acknowl edged that t he State had

entered in

to the ple a agr eement based

on t ha t av o wa l, an d t ha t t he ac co mplic e p r o mise d t ha t she wo uld t es t ify t rut hfu lly at the def endan t’s trial
. Ri

vera , 210 Ariz. at 189, 109 P. 3d a t 84. The Su pr eme Co ur t of Ar izonaNo. 1-04- 2894

18

concl uded t hat t he de fen da nt ’s r igh t s w er e a de qu at ely p r o t ec t ed be ca us e t he ple a a gr ee men t s d id not compel the ac com pl i ce s to d i sreg ard the i r oaths of t ru t hfulness o r bindthe

m to a p arti cul ar s cri pt or
resu l t. Ri vera , 210 Ariz. at 191-92, 109 P. 3d at 86-87. I n so holdin

g, the Ri vera court found that Sta te v. Fisher , 1 76 Ar iz. 6 9, 73, 859 P. 2d 1 79, 183 (1 993 ) w as fac t ually distingu ishable beca use t he ple a agreement in

that ca se required

onl y th at th e wi tn es s te sti f y i n a m an n er th at w as con siste n t wi th
a prior statem

en t regard l ess of the truth of

that statemen

t. Ri vera , 210 Ari

z. at 192, 109 P.3d at 87, ci ting Fi sher , 176 Ariz. at 73, 859 P. 2d at 183. Here, t he ple a a gr ee men t r ep ea t ed ly and ex plic it ly ob l i ga ted Joh n son to t est ify t ru t hfully. T he agr eement als o pr o vid ed t ha t Jo hns o n w o ul d t es t ify ina m an ne r th at w asconsistent w

i th h i s p rior sta tem en ts t o po lice an d t o pr o se cu t o r s, bu t if an y o f t he r ep r es en t at io ns contai ne d i n h i s p rior sta tem en ts were found to be f

al se, the agreement wou ld b e rendered null and void. Thus, tr uthfuln ess was t he o ve rr idin g r eq uir eme nt o f t he ag r ee men t , an d a ny fa lse ho o ds in Joh n son ’s pri or s tate

men ts
wo uld nul

l i f y the accord. Th

e agre em en t nei ther c omp el

l ed John son to disreg ard h i s oa thof tru thful nessnor bound hi

m to a partic ul ar scri

pt or resul

t. By i ts terms, th

e re qui rem en t of tru th f ul n es s “ n ec es sa ri l y en gul f ed” th e oth er prov i si on s i n th e a gr eemen t, whi ch was “hi ng ed upon [Johnson’s] trut hf

ul testi mony .” See Bolden, 979 S.W.2d at 592. Acc or ding ly , we fi nd that Johnso n’s te st imony

wa s n o t t ain t ed by t he pl ea ag r ee men t , an d t he ad miss io n o f his t es t imo ny, induce d by t he plea agr eement , d id no t violat e t he de fen da nt ’s r igh t s t o du e p r o ce ss an d a fair t r ial. In addi tion, the def

endan t clai ms that he was de nied due process where the tria l judge partici pated in Johnso n’s ple a agr eement and failed t o r ecu se himself from p re siding o ver t he defend ant ’s se co nd t rial. We find t hat t his co nt ent ion is no t sup po rt ed by t he re cord. C on tra ry toNo. 1-04- 2894

19

t he defen dan t’s asse rtion, the trial

judge did n ot sign an

d was not a party to Johnson’s pl ea ag re em en t. In addi tion, the court did not appro ve Johnson’s pl ea agr eement unt il m

or e t han a mon

th after the de fendant’s second tr ial had concluded and he h

ad again b een found guilty. In l igh t o f these fac t s, we find t ha t t he de fen da nt ’s cla im that t he trial

judge com m i tted re v er si b l e error b y f ai l i n g to recuse hi ms el f is unf

ounded. We al so reject the def

endan t’s assertion that the State’s plea agreem en t w i th J ohn son “usurped the sole ri

ght to pardon or co mm

ute sentencesal locat ed to the G overn or of Il l i noi s.” I nit iall y, we obs erv

e that the d ef

en da nt l ac kssta nd i ng to chal l en gethe va l i di ty an d enf orce ab i l i ty of John son’ s pl ea a greem en t bec aus e he was

not a pa rty to i t. It i s e sta b l i sh ed th at f ul l y n eg oti ate d p l ea

ag re em en ts, th oug h pa rt o f the crim

in al jus tice structur e, are ge

neral l y governe d by

contract la

w pri nc i ples. Peo ple v. Eva ns , 174 Ill . 2d 320, 332, 673 N.E.2d 244 (19 96) ; Pe o ple v. Ma lin , 359 Ill . App. 3d 257, 262, 833 N.E. 2d 440 (2005). Under contract la

w, there i s a strong pre sum

pti on ag ai nst creati ng c ontractua

l ri ghts i n th i rd pa r t ies , an d t his pre su m ption can onl y b e overcome b

y a showi ng that the la

nguage and ci rcumstances of the contract
man if est an af f i rm ati ve i nten t by the p arti es to be

ne f i t the thi rd pa r t y. Estate o f W

il li s v. Ki ferb aum Constru cti on Co rp. , 357 Ill. A

pp. 3d 1002, 1007, 830 N.E .2d 636 (2005), citin g Bates & R ogers Constru cti on Corp. v. Greely

& Hansen , 1 09 Ill . 2 d 2 25 (1 98 6) . H ere, th e def en da n t wa s n ot a bene f i ciary of t he plea agr eement bet wee n Jo hnso n and t he Sta te. A s a re su l t, he h as n o st an di n g to
con test th e v al i di ty or en f orc em en t of Joh n son ’s pl ea ag re em en t. Moreover, ev en

i f the def endan t had stan di ng to as sert

thiscl ai m, i t is cl ear that the plea agree men t en tere d i nto b etw een J

ohn son an d the Sta te w asne i the r a p ard on nor a c om m uta ti on ofNo. 1-04- 2894

20

sent ence . A pardon i s an ex ecutive action that off

ic ia ll y n ull if ie s punishm

ent or o ther legal consequenc es of a

cri me. Bl ack’ s La w Di cti onary 113 7 (7 th e d. 1 999 ). A

com m uta ti on of a sen tence is the executi

ve’s substi tut ion of a puni shm

ent that is l

ess sev ere than that origi

n ally i mpo sed on a crim in al defen dant. Blac

k’s Law Di

ctionary 274 (7th ed. 1999). Neither of these si

tuations requi

res the convicted defendant to undertake any pro mise or o bl

igation i n order t o receive the benef it. By
con tra st, t he ag re ement between John son and the State was a negotiated ac cord th at obl i ga ted b oth the pro secution and Johnson to take cer tain actions i n order t o sat isf

y i ts t erms. The suprem

e court has recognized

that “[t]here is n

o question that ‘the di sposition of cri mi nal chargesby

agree men t betwe en the prosecu

tor and the ac cus ed, s ometim es l oosely calle d “pl

ea ba rgai ni ng,” is an ess entia

l c omponen

t o f the adm

in is trat ion of jus tice.’ ” Peo ple v. Hend

ers on , 211 I ll. 2d 90, 102, 809 N.E.2d 1224, ( 2004), quot in g San tobel l o v. Ne w York , 404 U.S. 257, 260, 92 S. Ct . 4 95, 498 (1 971 ). In a ddit ion, t he co ur t has he ld t hat “the plea- barga i ni ng proc ess, and t he negotiated

plea agree men ts th at re sul t f rom tha t proc es s, a

re ‘ vi tal to an d h ig hly desi

rable for our crim in al jus tice sy stem.’ ” Hend

ers on , 211 Ill . 2d at 102-03, quot in g Peo ple v. Eva ns , 174 Ill . 2d 320, 325, 67 3 N.E.2d

244 (1 996). In thi s case, the pl

ea ag re eme nt re qu ire d J o hnso n t o t es t ify tru th f ul l y ag ai n st th e def en da n t, withdraw all o f his a pp ea ls an

d pos tcon vi cti on petitions, and forever waive an y an d all future appeals, postcon v i cti on peti ti on s or moti on s to v ac ate

ple as. The record demonstrat es that Johnson h ad an
am ended su pp leme nt al p o st co nvic t io n p et it io n p en din g in Ja nu ar y 20 04 , an d h e mo ve d t o vo lun t ar ily dism iss his po st co nvictio n app eal in acc or danc e wit h t he terms of the p l ea a

greem en t. In exch ange f orJohnson’ s trut hf

ul testi mony and h is promi se to forego future appeals an d po stc on vi

cti onNo. 1-04- 2894

21

petitions, t he St at e p r o mise d t o mo ve t o va ca t e J o hns o n’s ex ist ing se nt en ce , ac ce pt his guil ty plea on one cou nt of f i rs t de gre e m

urder, m ove to no lle pros equit h e oth er m urder c h arge , a

n d to
re co mmend

tha t Joh ns on rec ei ve a s en ten ceof 60 ye ars i n pri son, whi

ch was the m

axi mum sentence f orfi rst degree murder. These m utual obl iga tions dem onstrate t hat the pl ea agreem ent between Johnson a nd the State cannot be construed as a pardon or a comm utation of sen

tence. Ou ran alys is is no t alt er ed by t he fac t t ha t Jo hns o n ha d a lre ad y bee n t r ied an d c o nvic ted
. I llino is co ur t s have con

siste n tl y h el d th at a de f en da n t doe s n ot h av e a n ab sol ute ri gh t to h av e a gui l ty ple a accepted by

the ci rcuit court, and the court may reject a plea i

n the exercis e of sound j udic ia l discr et ion. Hend

ers on , 211 Ill . 2d at 103, citing Sa nt o be llo , 40 4 U. S. at 262 ; Peop l e v . Peters on , 311 I ll. App. 3d 38, 45, 725 N.E.2d 1 (1999). Bef ore a tr ia l judge accepts any

ple a, the judge

must fi rst det er mine if t he plea has a fact ual bas is, which p ro t ect s t hos e ac cus ed o f crime “by ensur ing that t hey have no t ple ad ed gu ilt y by mis take o run de ra mis ap pr eh en sio n, o rbe en co er ce d o rimpr o pe r ly advi sed to ple ad to crim es they did n ot comm it.” Pe o ple ex r el. Da ley v. Su r ia , 112 Ill . 2d 26, 32, 490 N .E.2d 128 8 (198 6). Here, the trial co ur t fou nd a fac t ual bas is for t he gu ilty plea aft er having presi ded over Johnson’ s earlie

rtrial and h avi ng he ard Johnson’ s testim ony a t t he de fen da nt ’s r et r ial, whi ch recounted his

partici pation i n the m urderof W

i l l i ams, an d the courtdid not accept Johnso n’s gui l ty ple a until more than a m

onth after the def

endan t was f oun d gu i l ty on r etri al . Al so, as noted above, Johnson v

oluntarily dis mi ssed a pendi ng appeal on a po st co nvictio n pet itio n pur sua nt t o t he ple a ag r ee men t . Un de rt he se cir cum stances , w e find t hat t he plea agr eement was valid and enf orceabl e.No. 1-04- 2894

22

In add itio n, e ven if the plea a gr eement we r e fo un d t o be inva lid, t he o nly co nse qu en ce wo uld be t hat it co uld no t have be en enfo rc ed by eit her t he St at e o r Jo hnso n. T he de fendant has c ited no au th ori ty holdi ng that a de t er minatio n t hat t he plea agr eement was invalid wou ld have re quir ed t he
su ppr es si on of Jo hnso n’s t est imony. Ra t her , a finding tha t t he agreem ent was void would m

ean that nei ther Joh n son n or th e S tate wo uld ha ve be en o blig at ed t o fulfill their respe ctive comm itm ents under t he ag re ement , a ndJohnson woul d stil l b e l egally

convi cted of two murders. See People v . Caban , 318 Ill . Ap

p. 3d 10 82, 108 7-89 (2 001) (h old i ng th at, w her e t he se nt ence sti pula ted in the ple a agr eement was not authorized by statute, the

en tire agreem ent was void, and the def

endan t’s ple a was pr o pe r ly vacated). For all

of the reasons s et forth above, we rej ect the defen dant’s ass ertion that Johnson’ s pl ea agreem

ent was i nva li d. The defend ant ne xt cla ims t ha t it wa s imp r o pe rt o r et ry him on the o rigi

nal in dictmen t because that indict ment was base d o n per jure d t est imony

by Wi lson. In r esp ons e, t he St at e co nt ends t hat t he defen dant has f orfei ted this issue on appeal . We agree. To pre serv e a

n i ss uef orreview, a defen

dant mustbot h objec t at t rial and ra ise t he issue in a wri tten post-trial

motion
. People v. Bush , 214 Ill . 2d 318, 332, 827 N.E.2d 455 (20 05) ; Peo ple v. Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d 176, 186, 522 N.E .2d 1124 (1988). He re , t he de fend ant did no t challenge t he indict ment pri or to o rdu r ing t r ial, no rdi d h e r ais e it in h is p o st - t r ial m o t io n. Co ns eq ue nt ly, he h as forfe ited thi s clai

m on a ppeal . See Bush , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 332 ; Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d at 186. Moreover, even

if this is sue had been p re ser ved fo r r eview, t he de fendant has failed t o p re sent t his courtwi

th an adeq ua te rec ord to support his ass ertion that the in dictment agai

nst hi m was bas ed
so lely on t he gra

nd j ury tes ti mony of W i l son . It i s e sta

bl i sh ed tha t the appe l l an t has th e b urden ofNo. 1-04- 2894

1 Thi s court gr anted the def endan t’s motion to supple

me nt the record o n appeal

to in cl ude the report of proceedin

gs bef ore t he grand jury. A

lthough the b

rief s i ndicate that Wilson testif

ie d befo re t he gr and jur y, t he su pplement al rec or d filed by the defend ant co nt ains o nly the t est imony of Detect iv

e Wi nstead and does no t incl

ude the t estim

ony of W il son or any

ot her witnesses. 23 pr ovid inga s uffic ient ly co mplet e r ec o rd o n ap pe al so t hat t he r evie wing co ur t is fu lly i nf ormed
re gar ding the issues to be resol ve d. People v . Moore , 373 Ill . App. 3d 367, 376, 869 N.E. 2d 177 (2007 ); People v . Raczkowski , 359 Ill . App. 3d 4 94, 496 , 8 34 N .E .2 d 59 6 ( 200 5) . Whe re t he is sue on appeal relates to the conduct o f a proceedi ng, t he iss ue is not s

ub j ec t to rev

i ew ab sent a rep ort or record of the proce edi

ng. Web ster v. Hartman , 195 Ill . 2d 4 26, 432 , 749 N .E.2d 958 (2001 ); Raczkowski , 35 9 I ll. A

pp. 3d a t 496 . Be ca

us e the re cord

be f ore u s doesnot

i nc l ude the en tire report of pr o ce ed ing s be fo r e t he gr an d ju ry, it is imp o ss ible for t his co ur t t o a sce rt ain whet her t he indict ment agains t t he de fe nd an t wa s b as ed ex clu siv ely o n Wils o n’ s t es t imo ny. 1 Accordin gly , we mus t pr es ume th at th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot er r i n perm i tti n g th e retr i al of th e def en da n t on th e or i gi n al i n di ctm en t. The defend ant also ar gue s t hat it w as r ever sible err or for t he St at e t o ca ll Deanda W

il son as a witnes s. I n pa

rtic ular, the def endan t conten ds that he wasden i ed due proce ss a

nd a f ai r t r ia l because th e c our

t perm i tted th e S tate to call Wilso n des pit e t he recantation of h is testim ony gi ven at previous t r ials an d b efo r e t he gr an d ju ry. T he St at e a ga in ar gue s t hat t he de fen da nt ha s fo r feit ed t his is sue on appeal , and we m ust agree. As st at ed ab o ve , in

order to pres erve an

i ssu e f or revi ew, a defen dant mus t bot h obj ect at t rial and ra ise t he is sue i

n a wri tt en post-tri al m otion
. Bush , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 332 ; Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d at 186. In this case, the def

endan t faile d to obje ct at t r ia l to the in tro duction of W

il son’s testim

ony a nd, therefore, has f

orfei ted this is sue on revi

ew. See Bush , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 332 ; Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d at 186.No. 1-04- 2894

24

De sp i te this forfe iture, the defe

ndan t urges us to consider this

is sue under the pl

ai n-error rule, whi ch permi ts review where the tr ial evidence was close ly

bal anced or when the err or is “so
su bstanti al th at it affe ct ed t he fun da men t al fa irn es s o f t he pr o ce ed ing , an d r eme dyin g t he er r o ris
ne ces sary to preserve the i

ntegrity of the j udic ia

l process.” Peo ple v. Ha ll , 194 Ill . 2d 305, 335, 743 N.E.2d 521 (2 000 ); 1 34 I ll.2d R . 6 15( a) . T he de fendant asse rt s t hat plain e rro r was establ is hed because t he que sti

on of w het her Wilson’s t rial t est imony was p er jure d had been finally decided dur ing the postco nvi

ction proceedi

ngs an d had b ecome the l

aw of the case . We di sagree. The la w of the cas e doctri

ne b ars reli

tigation of

an i ssue al

ready de ci ded i

n the sam e case. See People v . Tenner , 206 Ill . 2d 381, 395, 794 N.E .2d 238 (20 02) ; Peop l e v . Pa tters on , 154 Ill . 2d 414, 468, 6 10 N. E. 2d 16 (1 99 2) . T he c as e be fo re us is t he d efe nda nt ’s d ire ct ap pe al o f h i s co nvictio ns fo llo win g t he se co nd t r ial, wh i ch i s a se pa ra te and d istinct pr oc eed ing fro m that involving t he defen dant’s post-convi ction petition. See Pe o ple v. Ha rr is , 224 Ill . 2d 115, 127, 862 N.E .2d 960 (2007) (reco gni

zin g that a post convicti on pro ceeding collaterall y attacking a conviction is a case
se pa ra te and apart from the case in whi ch the co nvi

ction wa s enter ed). Because t he defendant’s direct app eal and t he po st co nvictio n pr oc eed ings ar e no t t he sa me case , t he do ct rine o f law o f the
case does not apply

here. See Tenner , 206 Ill . 2d at 39 5 -9 6. In a ddit ion, we o bser ve t hat t he defend ant ha s n

ot argued th

at ei ther c oll ateral estoppe l or res judi

cata a ppl i ed to the que sti on of whether Wi ls on’s testim

ony h ad been perjured, and we declin

e to address the

i ss uesi nc e i t wa s n ot rais ed on ap peal. S ee 21 0 Ill. 2d R. 3 41( h)(7 ); Peop l e v . Col on , 22 5 I ll. 2d 125, 157, 866 N.E. 2d 207 (2007 ).No. 1-04- 2894

25

Moreover, the me

rits of the def

endan t’s argumen

t have b een rej ectedby Pe o ple v. Cr aig , 334 I ll. Ap p. 3d 42 6, 7 78 N.E.2 d 19 2 ( 200 2) . As o bser ved in Cr aig , se cti on 1 15- 10. 1 of

the Code of Crim in al Procedu re (725 ILCS 5/115 -10.1 (West 2004)) speci fi cally authorizesthe

ad m i ss i on of pri or in consi stent stat em

ents as sub stantiv

e evi dence and dict at es t hat t he co ur t did no t er r in pe rmitt ing the St ate t o call W

il son as a witness. Section 115- 10.1 pr ovides, in relevan t par t, as foll

ows:

“ Inall c rim

in al cases, ev

ide nce of a statement m

ade by a wi tness i s not made ina dmis sible by t he he ar sa y ru le if (a ) t he st at ement is incons iste nt wit h his te st imony at t he hea ring o r t rial, a nd (b) t he wit ness is s ubject t o c ro ss- examinat ion co ncer ning t he st at ement , a nd (c ) the state

men t– (1) wa s m ade u nd er oa th a t a tri al , h ea ri ng , or other proce edi

ng , or (2) narrates, descri

bes, or expl

ai ns an event or co ndit ion o f which t he wit ness ha d pe rso nal kno wledg e, and (A) the statem ent is pro ved t o ha ve bee n wr itt en o r signe d by t he wi tne ss , or (B) t he wit ness a ckno wledg ed u nder oa t h t he making o f the st at ement eit her in hi s testim

ony a t t he h earin g or t rial in whi ch the admis sio n int o ev ide nc e o f t he pr io rst at eme nt is be ing so ug ht , o rat a t r ia l , he ari ng , or other proce edi

ng , orNo. 1-04- 2894

26 (c) the statement i s proved to have been accurately

reco rd ed by

a tape recorde r, video t ape re co rd ing, o r a ny ot her si mi la relect ro nic means o f sou nd recordi ng.” 725 ILCS 5/115-10.1 (West 2004); seealso Cr aig , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 441. Under

this provisi on, prior in

consi stent stat em

ents are adm

is si ble as sub stantiv

e evi dence as l ong a s the

statutory requirem ents hav e been me t. See People v . Ben

f ord , 349 Ill . App. 3d 721, 730, 812 N.E .2d 714 (20 04) ; People v . Kl uppe l berg , 25 7 I ll . Ap p. 3d 516, 534, 628 N.E. 2d 908 (1993 ). In Cr aig , t his court reco gnized that “ ‘a sub stan tiv e pol i cy reas on f or secti on 115 -10.1 of t he Code wa s t o pr ev en t a t ur nc o at wit ne ss fr o m ba ck ing aw ay fr o m a fo rmer stateme nt made under circu msta nces indicat ing it w as likely to be t ru e by merely denying the statement.’ ” Cr aig , 33 4 I ll. App. 3d at 441-42, quo ting People v . Fauber , 26 6 I ll. App. 3d 381, 390-91, 640 N.E. 2d 689 (1 994). The Crai g court hel d t hat t he defendant’s due pro cess rights w ere no t violated by the Stat e’s i ntr oduc ti on as su bst ant ive evidenc e t he pr ior incons iste nt st at ement s o f tw o w itnes ses w ho recanted thei r prev i ous testi mony at tria l
. Cr aig , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 441-42. In t his ca se , ea

ch term set f orth i n s ec ti on 115 -1 0. 1 wa s sat isfied by Wi lson’s t est imony at t he previous t rials and dur ingthe g ran d j ury proc ee di ng s. C ons eq

uentl y , th e adm

i ss i on of W i l son ’s pri or i nc on sist ent st at ement s as s ubst ant ive evidenc e wa s pr op er , a nd we find no vio latio n of t he defen dant’s ri ght to due process by

its adm is si on. See Cr aig , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 441-42. The defend ant next contends t hat his conv ictions m ust be reverse d based

on cu m ulati ve error. In su pp o r t o f t his c o nt en t io n, he r elie s u po n t he ple a agreem ent wi th J ohn son, th e adm

i ss i on of Wilson’s prior in

consi stent stat em

ents as sub stantiv

e evi dence, h is retrial based on the origin

alNo. 1-04- 2894

27

in dic tmen t, an d the f ac t tha t the State of f ere d “ i nc en ti ve s” f or th e te sti

mony of Ni ch ol son an d Go rd on. We h

ave prev iousl y di sposed of the f

irst three as si

gn men ts of error. Regarding the f in al allegat ion, we i

ni tial ly observe that the def

endan t has wai ved this i ssue on review by

fai li ng to raise it at trial . See Bush , 21 4 Ill. 2d at 332 ; Enoch , 12 2 I l l . 2d at 1 86 . In

addi ti on , w e f i n d th at th e defend ant wa s no t de nie d d ue pr o ce ss wh er e h is c o un se l wa s a ble to cr oss -e x am i n e b oth Ni ch ol son and Go r do n r eg ar din g a ny ind uc eme nt s o rbe ne fit s t ha t ha d b ee n o ffer ed by t he pr o se cu t io n in exch angefo rt he ir

t est imony. Acc or dingly, we co nclude t hat t he defend ant was not dep rived of t he right to a fai

r t rial ba sed on cum

ula tive e rror. See People v . Caff ey 205 Ill . 2d 52, 117-18, 792 N.E .2d 116 3 (2 001 ); Pe o ple v. Ha ll , 194 Il l . 2d 305 , 350-5 1, 743 N .E.2d 521 (2000 ). Fin ally, we address the def endan t’s argumen

t t hat hi s convictions should be reversed because t he St at e failed t o p ro ve him guilty beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt . I n challenging t he ev ide nt iar y bas is f orhis c o nvic tion s, the defe ndan t essentia ll y di sputes the credibil

ity of the wi tnesses wh

o t estif ie d agains t him. Spec i f

i cal l y , he clai m s tha t hi s con vi cti ons s houl d be reverse d wherethe testim ony gi ven by Johnson, Ni

chol son, and G ord on was im pro babl e and unconvi

nci ng because each of these witne ssesha d r ec eiv ed su bst an t ia lb en ef i ts fro m the S t at e in excha nge fo r t heir t est imony. We dis agree. Wh en a de f endant chal

len ges the suffi

cien cy of the evi

dence, the appellate court must det er mine “wh ether , aft er viewing t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion, any rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el em ents of the cri

me bey ond a reas onab l e doubt.” Jack son v. Vir gin ia , 443 U .S . 307, 319, 99 S . Ct . 27 81, 61 L. Ed. 2d 5 60 ( 197 9); Peo ple v. Cunn in gham , 212 Ill . 2d 274, 278, 818 N.E .2d 304 (2 004 ). In su ch a cas e, it is no t t he r ole o f theNo. 1-04- 2894

28

re viewing court to retry th e def endan t. Peo ple v. Su t her land , 22 3 I ll. 2d 187, 242, 860 N.E. 2d 178 (2006 ). A criminal convict ion will not be set asi de on the grounds of i nsuf fi ci ent evi dence unless t he evi dence is so unr eas ona ble, impro bable, or unsa t isfact or y as t o ju st ify a r eas ona ble do ubt of t he defendant’s gui

l t. Pe o ple v. Brown , 169 Ill . 2d 132, 152, 661 N.E .2d287 (1996) . I n re viewing t he
ev i denc e w e w i l l

not s ub sti tute ou r j udg men t f or th at of the tri er of f act. Su t her land , 223 Ill . 2d at 242; Peo ple v. Co lli

ns , 2 14 I ll. 2d 2 06, 217 , 8 24 N .E .2 d 26 2 ( 200 5) . T he det er minatio n of t he we ight to be gi ve n t he wit ne ss es ’ t es t imo ny, the i r credi bi l i ty , re sol ution o f inc o nsis t en cie s a nd co nflic t s in t he evi dence, an d reasonabl

e i nf erences to be drawn

fro m the t est imony

ar e t he r esp ons ibil

ity o f the trie r of f act. Su t her land , 223 Ill . 2d at 242. The t es t imo ny o f a s ing le w it ne ss , is su fficie nt t o co nvic t if t he t est imony is pos itive and t he witnessi s cre di

bl e. Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 185 Ill . 2d 532, 541, 70 8 N.E.2d 365 (1 999). W

here t he finding of t he de fe nd an t ’s gu ilt de pe nd s o n e yew it ne ss t es t imo ny, a rev i ewi ng c ourt m

ust dec i de wh

ethe r a fac t find er co uld reas onab l y acc ept the

testi mony as true bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Cunn

in gham , 212 Ill . 2d at 279. Under this standard, the ey ew it ne ss t es t imo ny may b e fo un d in su fficie nt “o nly wh erethe re cord

evidenc e co mpels t he co nclusio n t hat no r eas ona ble per so n co uld ac cep t it beyo nd
a reasonabl

e doubt.” Cunn

in gham , 212 Il l . 2d at 28 0. Although

“the testim

ony of an accom

pli ce witnesshas i

nh ere nt wea knes se s a nd sh ou ld b e accepted only

with c aution an

d suspici on,” such t es t imo ny, “wh

ether corro borated or unco rr obo ra t ed, is sufficient t o s ust ain a cr iminal c o nvic t io n if it co nvinces t he [t rier of fac t ] o f the defen dant’s gui lt bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt.” People v . Tenney , 205 Ill . 2d 411, 429, 793 N.E.2d 571 ( 2002), citin g Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 177 Ill . 2d53, 74, 685 N.E. 2d 880 (199 7). Mo reover, a conviction wi ll not be reversed simpl

y b ecause t he de fen da nt cla ims thatNo. 1-04- 2894

29

a wi tnes s wa s n

ot credi bl e. Sm i th , 17 7 Ill. 2d at 74; Peop l e v . By ron , 164 Ill . 2d 2 7 9, 299, 647 N.E.2d 9 46 (19 95). In t his case , t he dir ect evidenc e ag ainst t he de fendant co nsist ed p rimarily of t he t est imony of Jo hnso n, who testif

ie d in detail regardin g hi s own i

nvol vem ent an d that of t he de fendant in the
m urders of Wi ll iam s and Kauf

man . Johnson explai

ned the motivation beh

in d the murder o f W

il li ams, who was bel

ie ved to be a m

em ber of the Del

Viki ngs street gang that was r es po nsib le for the previ ous sexual assaul t o f K evi n Young’s

girl fri end. Healso de sc r ibe d t he se r ies o f ev en t s t ha t cu lminat ed in t he two murders. He expl ic itl y rel ated the man

ner i n wh ic h the sev en co-defe

n dant s met on t he evening of N ove mber 9 , 1 989 , a rmed t hemselve s wit h va rious weapons, travel ed between s everal bui ldi ngsi n th e h ous i ng com plex , an d rob be d N i ch ol so n be f ore e nc oun teri ng W i l l i am s. J ohn son testifi ed th at af ter Sm i th ca l l ed out to Wi

l l i ams, al l sev en mem bers of t he gr ou p sho t at him whil e he att empted to fl

ee to ward t he IIT buil

din g. Bo th Wil

li ams an d Kaufm an were kil

led b y these sh ot s. John son’ s testi mony alone was s

uf f i cien t to sustai n the def endan t’s m urder c onv

i cti ons. I n add itio n, several aspects of his t e st imony wer e co rr obo ra t ed by t he t est imony of Nicho lson a nd Go rd on. In

pa rti cul ar , N i ch

ol son testi f i ed th at th e def en da n t wa s a rm ed wi th a gun an d was pa rt of t he gr ou p o f men who ro bbed him sho rt ly before t he sho ot ings o ccu rr ed. Go rd on’ s t est imony
corro borated Joh

ns on’ s des cri

ption of t he ev en

ts that occ

urred i m medi atel y be f ore the s hooti ngs . As st at ed e ar lier, it was t he r ight an d ob l i ga ti on of t he t rial judg e t o d et er mine the w eight and
cred i b i l i ty to b e g i v en th e wi tn es se s’ testi

mon y , to re so lve anyincons iste ncies and co nfli ct s in the evi dence, and to deci

de th e rea sona

bl e i nf eren ces to be dra wn f rom th e testi mony . Su t her land , 223 Ill. 2d a t 2 42; Tenney

, 205 Ill . 2d at 42 8. T he co ur t wa s w ell aware of the terms of John son’s pl

eaNo. 1-04- 2894

30

agr eement an d, in a cc ep t ing t he ple a, t he co ur t sp ec ifica lly found that John son’s tria l testi mony was t r ut hfu l. Inaddi

tion, the court was inf

ormed of the b enef

its that both Ni chol son and Gordon had recei ved i n exchan ge f or th ei r te sti mon y . Al so, as

th e f i n der of f act, the tr i al cou rt w as en ti tl ed to
cr ed it t he testim

ony of the prosecution wi

tnesses an d to dis regard the defen

dant’s al ibi e vi dence. See Peop l e v . Ji

mers on , 127 Il

l . 2d 12, 4 6, 535 N .E.2d 889(1989 ). In r eviewing a ll of the ev ide nc e in
acc ordwith the s

tandard set forth above, we f in d t hat a r at ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonabl e doubt. Accordingl

y, we reject t he def

endan t’s assertion that 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. For the foregoing reas ons, we af fi rm the def

endan t’s convi ctions an d sentence
. Af fi rmed. HA LL and K AR NEZIS , J.J., c oncu

r.