Docket No . 108319.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appel le e, v. RENE AMI GO N, A pp el l an t.
Opinion filed November 18, 2010.

CHIEF JUSTICE KILBRIDE

de li v ered th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, wit h op inion. Justice s Fr ee man , T ho mas , Ga rman , Ka rmeie r , Bu rke , an d T he is
co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

Defend ant ch

al l en ge s th e suf f i ci en cy of the State ’s ca us ati on evi dence and the ad miss io n o f his 1 99 5 c us t o dia l st at eme nt

. While
ser vingconsecutive prison terms f or fi rst deg ree murder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1) (West 19 92 )) a n d tw o cou

n ts of ag gr av ate d b atte ry wi th
a f i rearm (720 IL CS 5/1 2–4.2 (a)(1) ( We st 19 92 ) ) st emming fr o m a 1994 shooting i

nci dent, defen

dant was ch

arge d w i th a second m

urder after an ot he r o f t he o r igin al s ho o t ing vic t ims d ied fr o m pn eu mo nia five years l ater. Duri

n g tr ial i n t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y, defendant’s 1995 custodial statement was adm

itted, aswa s c au sa

ti on t est imony f rom a C ook C oun

ty assist ant medical exa miner. D efenda nt was co nvic t ed o f t he mur de ran d s en t en ce d t o man da t o ry li f e in pr ison. The appel

la te court aff

irm ed (388 Ill . App. 3d 26), and we-2- af f i rm th e a pp el l ate cou rt j udgm en t.

I. BACKG

ROUND In 199 8, defend ant and a co defend an t w er e co nvicte d in t he Cook Cou nty ci rcu i t cou rt of f i rs t de gr ee m urder a n d tw o cou

n ts of aggravated

battery wi

th a fi rearm f or a 1 995 gang -r elat ed s hoo t ing that occ ur re d w h en de f en da n t wa s 1 8 y ea rsol d. H e w as

se n ten ce d to
co nsec ut ivepr iso n t er ms of 50, 30, and 2 0 year s, r esp ect ively. Dur ing the in vestigation of the i

nci dent in 1995, defen

dant ma de a custodial sta tem en t. One o f defend ant ’s 19 98 a ggr avat ed ba t t er y convict ions was f or t he sho o t in g o f Alf

onso Ruiz. Rui

z was sh ot in the neck, causi

ng a spi nal co rd injury and p ar alyzing him fr o m t he ne ck do wn , lea ving him
ca pa ble of

movi ng on ly hi s head an

d bi ceps. Af ter his in itial hos pi tal iza ti on an d t r ea t men t , Ru iz w as ab le t o li ve wi t h fa mily
mem bers, obt ain his GED , a nd

begi n colle ge cl asses. He l

ater returned to phy si cal therapy wi

th the goal of obtai

ni ng a driver’s l i cen se

to in crease hi s i

ndepen dence b y e nab li ng h im t o dr ive a s pe cia lly equi pped veh ic le

. Ap pr o ximat ely

51⁄2 years a

fter he was

shot, Ruiz was

hospi tali zed wi th com m un i ty acq uire d bac t er ial pneumo nia and died at the ageof 22

. Aft er a

nu m be r of Ruiz’ s orga

ns were rem

ove d f or t ra nsplant at ion, Dr. Nancy Jon es , th e C ook

County ass is

tant medi cal
ex am i ner, conducted an autopsy. She conc lude d that t he c au se of Ruiz’s de ath

wa s “ pneu moni a d ueto qua dri pleg i a d ueto a g un sh ot wound to the neck.” In Jan uary 2002, defen

dant was i

ndicted for Rui

z’s m urder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1), ( a)(2) (West 1992)). He fi le d a mot ion r equ est ing the court to take notice that he was al ready s ervi

ng a 30-y ear prison sentence f or th e aggr

avate d di scha rge of a f irearm for Rui z’s 1995 shooting. Defend ant also fil ed a mot ion in limine t o ba rt he us e o f his 1995 custodial

statement to t he po l i cebe ca us e i t wa s n ot ele ct r o nic ally

rec orde d, a

vi ol ati on of se cti on 1 03– 2.1 of the Code of Crim in al Pro cedure o f 1963 (725 ILCS 5/103–2.1 (West 2006)). That motion was

deni ed. At defendant’s 200 6 tri

al f orRui z’s m urder, t he State presented evi dence that incl uded: (1) defendant’s 19 95 cu sto di al sta tem en t; (2)-3- t est imony about the extent o f Rui

z’s i nj uries a nd act ivities aft er t he shooting; (3) a

t ra nscr ipt of Ru iz’s t est imony at defen dant’s f irst trial ab out the day

of t he sho ot ingand the i

nj uries Rui z recei ved; and (4) t he testi mony of Dr. Jone s, t he ass is

tant medi cal exam in er who had reviewed a report of Rui

z’s b ac k gr ou nd and medical re co rd s and
co nd uc t ed t he au t o ps y. At trial , Dr. Jones expl

ai ned t ha t o r din ar ily o nly

re latively healt hy
or gans are har vested for t ransplantat ion and that Ruiz’s spl een , part of his small i

nt es t in e, hear t , k idneys, p ancr eas , a dr enal gland , a nd many of his l ym ph nodeshad be en r emove d befo re she c ond uct ed t he
au t o ps y. A l

th oug h sh e c oul d h av e ob tai n ed de scri pti ons of t he removed organs and ev

en h ad t he or gans re t ur ned fo r e xaminatio n, sh e d id no t find t ho se ac t io ns ne ce ss ar y. The au tops y re v ea l ed acute bact erial pn eu moni a i n Ru iz’ s l un gs , a n d D r. J on es i den ti f i ed i t a s com m un i ty ac qui red pneu moni a b ec au se hi s i nf ec ti on did n ot ori

gi n ate in a hospi tal. Dr. Jones st at ed she wa s u na ble t o t es t fo rt he sp ec ific ba ct er ia invo lve d b ec au se o f co nt ami n ation from the prior organ
r emo va l an d t he t wo - da y de lay in he rr ec eip t o f t he bo dy. Dr. Jone s con

cl uded , h o we ve

r, that R ui z’ s p ara l y zi ng gun sh ot i nj ury was re late d t o his d evelo pment of p neumo nia and s ubse que nt de ath becaus e the gunsh ot severel

y da ma ged hi s f ourt h cervi

cal
ver t ebr a, affect ing his lung funct ion. Dr. Jones also stated t hat, as a quadri ple gic , Ruiz s

howed typi

cal signs o f me dic al was t ing, c aus ing him to beco me thinner and
co mpro misi

ng hi s i mm une sy stem du e to h i s i n ab i l i ty to move around. Sh e w as un ab le t o an alyz e h is immu ne sys t em, ho we ve r , be ca us e h is sp le en and m ost o f h is ly mph nodes had b een rem

oved. Dr. Jones tes t ified t hat Ruiz w as “mo re sus cep t ible” to pneu monia t han a “no rmal” 22-year-old because of his comprom

is ed i mm une s yste m and his ina bilit y t o br ea t he r eg ul ar ly an d d ee pl y. On cross-exam

in ation, Dr. Jones ad

mi tt ed that any

one can get pneum onia

. S h e add

ed, h owev er, tha

t usual l y the d i sea se is m

ore sev erean d le ng t hy w he n a n ind ividua l’s immune sys t em is compromised, as o cc ur s mo r e c o mmo nly in older peo ple and childre n. De sp i te t he fi ve y ears between

Rui z’s i ni tia l i nj ury and hi s de ath, D r. Jones concl

uded, withi

n a reasonable

degree of m

edi cal an d s cie nt ific
ce r t ain t y, that Ru iz’s

death was a homi

ci de becaus e a

guns hot wo und caused the quadripl

egi a that made

hi m m ore suscepti

ble to pneumoni

a.-4- The def ense pres ented no wi

tnesses or evi

dence. An hour after begi

nni ng del ib erations, the j ury reques ted a transcript of D r. Jones’ t es t imo ny an d, aft er co nsu lt ing wit h c o un se l, t he trial courtinformed t he jur y that a t ra nscr ipt was not available and in structed it to co ntin

ue deliber at ions. The jury fou nd de fendant gui l ty o f firs t de gr ee mur de r
. T he t r ial c o ur t de nie d h is p o st t r ial mo ti o n see king ei ther a judg ment o f acqu itt al or a new t rial base d o n t he in suf fi ci ency of the State’s causation ev ide nce an d an al l eg ed vi ol ati on of sec t ion 1 03– 2. 1( b) of the Code of Cri mi nal Procedure o f 1963 (725 ILCS 5/ 10 3– 2. 1( b) ( We st 20 06 ) ) , r eq uir ing ele ct r o nic rec ordi ng of an accused ’s cu sto di

al sta temen t. Def endan t was s en tenc ed to mandatory lifein pri son with no possibi

li ty of parole because of his 1995 fi rst degree murder co nvict ion (730 ILCS 5/5–8 –1(a)( 1)(c) (i) (West 2006) ). The appel

la te court aff

irm ed the convi

ct i on. Th i s court allowed def

endan t’s petition f

or leave to appeal . 210 Ill . 2d R. 315.

II. AN AL YSIS Bef ore this court , defen

dant rais es two is sues: (1) the suf fi ci ency of th e S tate ’s

pr ox i mate cau se sho wing; and (2 ) the retroacti v e e f f ec t, if any , of section 103–2.1 of the C ode of Cri mi nal Procedure o f 1963 (725 ILCS 5/103 –2.1 (W

est 200 6)), r eq uir ing ele ct r o nic rec ordi ng of
an accu sed’s custodial

statement i f the statement i s to be used as adverse ev

ide nce i n an y c rim in al proceedin

g.

A. Pro xi mate Cause Defend ant argu es

th at th e State fail

ed to pr ove bey

ond a
r ea so na ble dou bt t hat t he gunshot he fi red in 1995, resulting in Rui z’s quadripl egi a, was the proxi

ma te cause of Rui

z’ s de ath

f rom pn eu mo nia five

years l ater. In exam

in in g this i ssue, we mustconsider wh ethe r, viewing t he ev ide nc e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le to the Stat e, anyr ea so na ble tri er of

f ac t coul d have f

oun d the e ss en

ti al el em en ts of t he o ffen se be yo nd a r ea so na ble dou b t. People v. Collins , 106 Ill . 2d 237, 261 (198 5). T hus, we must aff irm defendan t’s conviction unl

ess no re aso nable jur y cou ld have fo und t hat t he St at e had pr ove n t he el em en t of pr ox i mate ca us e b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. Defend ant arg

ue s th at the Sta te f ai l ed to p ro ve proxim

ate cause because it offered only

Dr. Jo nes’ unsu

pport ed op inion t hat t he-5- quadr iple gia from

the gunsh

ot wound compromised Rui z’s i mm un e sy stem , resu l tin g i n h i s de ath f rom p ne um onia. He c onten

ds that Dr. Jones ad mit t ed o n c r o ss - ex amina t io n t ha t ab le -b od ie d 22-year-olds
a lso get pneum

onia and that she was unable

to establ is h ei ther: (1) actual dam age to Ruiz’s im

mun e system b ecause h

is spl een an d ly mph nodes ha d b een h arv es ted f ortrans plan tation be f ore the autopsy was conducted; or (2 ) t he sp ecifi c type o f bacteria under ly ing Rui z’s pn eu mo nia due t o c ont aminatio n fro m the o rg an re mova l and t he de lay in he rr ec eip t o f t he bo dy. Defend ant maintains that wi thout a suf

f i cien t factual ba si s f or Dr. Jones’ o pinions, the jury could n ot giv e her testim

ony the proper we i gh t, as ref le cted by the jury ’s request f

or a t ranscri

pt o f h er t est imony durin g d el ib er ations. Thus, the j ury v erdict was
un r ea so na ble and specul

ative , and a ne

w trial is necess ary. See People v. Bracke tt , 117 Il

l . 2d 170 , 177 (1 987). Dur ingoralarguments, defense counsel correct ly recogniz ed that t he issue of proxi

mate cause generall

y presents a

question f or the j ury butstated t hat she b elie

ved the j ury’ s request for a transcri pt of Dr. Jones’ t est imony show ed t hat it w as “u nc l ear” on tha t is sue . In
a ddi ti on , co unse l candidly ack now ledge d t hat t he jur y cou ld have deci ded t he caus ati on que sti on “ ei ther way ” but argue d tha

t the j ury

“ cou l d h av e acq ui tted ” def en da n t. The mere pos sibi li ty that a rational

jury could have acqui

tt ed defend ant based on the proxi ma te cause evi

dence prese

nted i s n ot eno ugh, however, to reverse def enda nt ’s co nvictio n unde r t he stan dard this court mus

t apply when reviewi ng a cha llenge t o t he suf fi ci ency of the S tat e’s ev ide nc e. A r ev iew ing co ur t may o nly overturn a j ur y ’s f i n di n g b y con cl udi n g th at no r ea so na ble trier of f

act co uld have f

oun d th e req ui si te element s o f the offense pr ove n beyond
a reas onab l e doubt. Collins , 106 I ll. 2d a t 261 . H er e, even d efenda nt does no t as se r t t he impo ss ibilit y t ha t so me r at io na l fac t find er co uld have fou nd su ffi

cient p ro of o f caus at ion. Inst ead , he insists t hat t he j ury di d n ot ha ve to f i nd ca us ati on b as ed on the S tat e’s evi

dence, an
argu men t we m us t f l atl y re j ec t. Defend ant also claims tha t allowing th e v erdi ct to s tan d w i l l crea te a “stri ct liabi

li ty” standard f

or murder when

the death occu rs l on g after t he in itial in jury and the v ictim has otherwi se recovered

to “usual he al th.”His stri

ct l i ab i l i ty ar gu men t is la

rgely based on h

is bel ie f that-6- People v. Gulli ford , 86 Ill . App. 3d 237(1980 ), People v. Reader , 26 I ll. 2d 210 (1962 ), People v . Carrillo , 1 64 I ll. 2d 1 44 ( 199 5) , a nd People v. Slyw ka , 365 Ill . App. 3d 3 4 (2 006 ), a re d i sti ng ui sh ab l e f rom t his case. In Gullif

ord and Reader , t he vic t ims fo r es ee ab ly die d w it hin a few weeks of their ini tial i njuries, but defendant argu es that Ruiz’s de ath from pneum onia over fi ve y ears af ter bein g s h ot wa s n

ot reasonabl y f oreseeable. The leng th of tim

e between the v

ictim ’s i ni tial in juri es and l ater death ha s n ot been determ i na tiv e of wh ethe r a de fen da nt is l i ab l e f

or murder ba se d o n fo r es ee ab ilit y since t he 19 61 a bolit ion o f the
com mon la w “one-y ear-an d -a-day” rul

e. Compare Il

l. Rev . Stat . 1953, ch. 38, pa r. 36 5, w i th Ill . Rev. Stat. 1961, ch. 38, par. 9–1 et seq . See also Carr illo , 164 Ill . 2d at 150 (concludi ng that the year-and-a-day
rule was leg i slat ively abolished in 19 61 a nd has not been p ar t of t he crim in al law o f I lli

no is si nce that tim

e). Under that rule, m

urder chargeswe r e b ar r ed if t he vic t im died mo re t han a yea r a nd a day after t he cr ime. As t he app ellate co ur t in Pe o p l e v

. B ro wn , 57 I ll. App. 3d 528, 53 1- 32 ( 19 78 ) , co rr ec t ly no t ed , “[ t ] he ex ist en ce o f a t ime in terval betwe en the defendant ’s act and death does not preclude ***
a caus al l i nk [ ci tation ]; th i s i s true e

ven w here, duri ng th i s i nterv al , there hasbeen an apparen

t recovery f

rom the i nj uries in fl icted.” Thus,
we are not pe rsu ade d t hat defend ant ’s mur der co nvictio n sho uld be reversed based on the short er lapses of tim e between the victim

s’ injuries and t heir d eat hs in Gullif ord and Reader

. Defend ant als o at t emp t s t o dis t ing uis h his ca se fr o m Carr illo and Slyw ka

. In those case s, the len gthy i ntervals between the vi

ctims ’ in itial injuries and t heir su bseq uent dea t hs, nine yea rs in Carr illo and eight years in Slyw

ka , weren ot h el

d to b e i m pe di men ts to the f i l i ng of murder charges. Def

endan t asserts that t hose t w o case s are dis t ing uis ha ble because those vi ctim s nev er recovered from

their i ni tial in juri es and “ l angui shed” f

or y ears be f ore dyi ng ( Carr illo , 164 Ill . 2d
at 146 ; S l ywk a , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 37), whil e Rui z was i n a “ usual sta te of heal th” when he dev el oped pneum

onia , according to hospital
recor ds. As def

endan t po in ts out , Ruiz h

ad returnedt o his co mmu nit y, had obtaine d hi s GED, had be gun colle ge course work, and was le arni ng to drive a ca

r when h e di ed. We arenot p ersuaded by def endant’s argument, however, because it i gnore s th

e rea l i ty th at R ui z n ev er f ul l y re cov ered or re tur n ed to-7- “no rmal” life a fte r be ing sho t . H e r emained a qua dr iplegic aft er t he sh oo ting and, acc ordi

ng to Dr. J

ones , suf f ered s erious se cond

ary ef f ec ts t o his br eat hingand i

mm une system as a result of hi s paraly sis. A cco rd ingto Dr. Jones, those adverse conseque nces, wh ile no t cur t ailing his a ct ivit ie s com

plete l y or lea vi ng hi m to “ l an gui sh ” f or years, ma de hi m m ore suscep t ible to pneu

moni a a nd l es s c ap ab l e of
su rvi v i n g i t. Al thoughde f

en da nt c ri ti ci ze s D r. Jone s’ tes ti

mon y f or a l ac k of f ac tu al s uppo rt underlyi

ng her o pini

ons o n the damage t o Ru iz’s imm une system

re sult ing fro m his quad ripleg ia, t he record reveals that she testifi ed extensi vel y a bout t he degree of

me dic al wastin g she n ot ed durin g the autopsy. Early

in her testim

ony, sh e stated t hat “the most r ema rka ble thi

ng ” a bou t he r ex tern al ex am i na ti on of the body was t he “gen erali zed was t ingand w eight loss wi th very promenade

[ sic ] bo ne and skeletal region.” The aut opsy report in dic ated t hat Ruiz w as five f oot seve n inches t all but weighe d o nly 107 p ou nds, altho ugh t he removal o f h i s org ans fo r t ra nsplant at ion r edu ced his weight “s ome wh at.” Dr. Jones also test if

ied that Ruiz’s l i ve r exh

ibited ch anges that
were “not unco mmon wit h individuals who have be en los ingweight
orwas t ing awa y over a pe rio d o f time.” In a ddit ion, she noted t he “at ro phy or was t ing

away [o f Rui z’s spi nal cord] from dam

age that ha d b een d one to the cord f rom t he bul le t passin g through the spin

al col um n.” She ex pla in ed that this atrophy

allowed a

porti on of Ruiz’s dam aged brain st em “ ont he bas e o f the sku ll *** t o g o d ow n t he spi nal cord .” S he

poi n te d out the evi

dence of general iz ed wastin

g, spi nal co rd at ro phy, a nd br ain st em movement in pho t og ra phs shown t o t he jury. Wh en asked aboutt he co nnect ion bet wee n Ruiz’s guns hot wo und
an d h i s pn eu moni a, Dr . J on es

ex pl ai n ed th at: “[an] individual who ha s paral y sis or qua dri pleg i a * ** f

rom in juri es t o t heir sp inal column also begin[ s] to undergo
me dic al was t ing. T hey beco me thinner and t heir immune sys t ems becom

e compromi

sed beca use of that m

uscle wastin

g, that in abi li ty to move a

nd get around ade quatel y . So i nd ividua ls with dam

age to the spinal

cord s are ** *
co mpr o mise d b ec au se t he ir im mun e system isn’ t as strong as i t would norm

ally be i n an in div idua l wh o didn’ t have thos e-8- probl ems.” Based on the autopsy and h

er reviewof Rui

z’s records, Dr. Jones determi ned t hat he “ died

asres ul t of pn eu mo nia du e t o qu ad r iple gia due to a gunsh

ot wound to t he n

eck.” She testif

ie d t ha t , wit hin a
r ea so na ble degree of m

edi cal and sci entif

ic certainty, Ruiz’ s death was a hom ic ide despi te the time

that had ela ps ed sinc e h is i

ni ti al gun sh ot inju ry. Moreov er, Dr. Jo nes’ t est imony est ablished t hat her co nclusio ns did no t r ely s o lely

on her m edi cal opini on that Rui

z’s i mm une sy stem was da mag ed fr o m his q ua dr iple gia and r esu ltant medical wa st ing. S he testifi ed th at R ui z dev el ope d a n d suc cu m b ed to pne umonia because his pa ra lyzing g uns ho t injur y sev er ely da mag ed his fo urth ce rvical vertebra. She e xplained t hat t he ner ves jo ining the spi nal cord between t he fou rt h and fifth c er vical vert ebr as a ffect t he ability t o br eat he by using the dia

phragm . The gunsh

ot in jury to Rui z’s f ourt h cervi

cal
vertebra are a dam ag ed thos e n erv es , re duc i ng hi s “ ab i l i ty to e xp and his lun gs r eg ula rly

or com pl etel y and f ull y f or norm al pul monary toil et.” Dr. Jones also explai

ned t he ef

fe ct s o f p ne um o nia o n t he bo dy. She stated that pneumoni a “reduces

the person’s ab il

ity to exch ange ai r,” t ak ing in o xyg en an d e xp elli ng ca rb on di ox i de an d oth er wa ste gases. “If t he lung is c o mpr o mise d in any way , say with pn eum onia , t he normal

gas exch ange can not go on. So t he oxy

gen l evel becom es reduced, and so the organs of the b ody do not get as muc h oxy gen as they ne ed to surv

i ve .” She th en con n ec ted Ru iz’ s i m pai re d l un g f un cti on to hi s dea

th f rom pn eu moni a, sta

ti n g th at: “we n ee d a n i n tact n er v ous sy ste m i n ord er to b re ath e ad eq ua t ely

and t o p re vent ou rse lves fro m develo ping pn eu mo nia or i

nf ec ti ons . W e n

ee d to b e a

bl e to t ake dee p breaths, fil

ling our lun gs. An d we need to be abl

e to expel that air co mpl etely because any tim e we can’ t comple

tely em pt y out t he lung s, i

t al l ows f or s ecre ti on s, m

uc osa , s al

i v a, to accum ulte [ sic ] in

t he lungs, t ypically

in the lo wer lungs, and it bec omesa growth m

edia f or bacteria. So any

thin g that can
com prom iseyour abi

li ty to breathe is

going to in

crease our ri sk f or developi

ng pne um onia.”-9- Dr. Jon es con cl uded th at R ui z w as “ moresu sc ep ti

b l e” to pn eu mo nia t han a “ normal ” 22-yea r-old due to his com

promi sed i m m un e sy ste m an d h i s i n ab i l i ty to bre at he r egu larly and

dee ply. She noted t hat whi lea “n

ormal ly heal thy 22 y ears old [sic ] us ua lly
surv i ve [s]” p ne umo nia, be cau se Ru iz’s immune syst em and lung f un cti on wer e co mpro mised as a re sult of his qu adr iplegia fro m the gun sh ot wound, “he e

nded up d yingfrom

this comm uni ty acqui red bacteria.” Dr. Jon es com pl ete d h er di re ct ex am i n ati on b y su m marizi n g th at: “[ g]eneral

iz ed muscl es [ sic ] atro phy, loss of b ody m ass ** *
wo uld aff ect [Ruiz’s ] abi

li ty to mai nt ain a no rmal imm

une response. So Mr. Ruiz a

cqui red a bact er ial p neumo nia in the
com m un i ty which bec aus e he w as a qua dr iplegic, had a t ro phy and m usc l e was

tin g an d hi s res pi ratory capa bi l i tie s we re compromised

be caus e the

gun shot wound m

ade h i m m ore sus cepti bl e tha n a norm al 22 y ear ol d woul d be .” Defend ant argues thatDr. Jon es ’ c au sa ti on te sti mony su f f ers f rom t he sam e lack of f actual supp ort as the

ex pert testi mony thi s court r ej ectedin People

v. Bracke tt , 117 Il

l . 2d 170 , 177 (1 987). W e dis agree. In Bracke tt , the doct or faile d t o p er for m an aut op sy to det er mine t he so ur ce o f t he emb o lism t hat killed t he ap par ent ly reco ver ing vic t im, an

d a t t rial he merely “sur mised” t hat t he so ur ce o f the emb olis m was th e k n i f e w oun d i n f l i cte d b y th e def en da n t. In con tra st, here Dr. Jones perf

orme d an autopsy , and he r testi mony wasf ar m ore sp ec ific and c lear a bou t t he co nnect ion bet wee n t he g uns hot i nj ury and Rui z’s ul tim ate death from pn

eum onia

. Alt ho ug h t he jur y did not have t o findproxim ate cause bey

ond a
r ea so na ble do ub t ba se d o n D r
. Jo ne s’ t es t imo ny, as defen se counsel acknowl edged

durin g oral argum

ent, its concl

usi on that ca us ation exi stedbeyond a r eas ona ble do ubt was sup po rt ed by su ffi cient evi dence. Wh

en the ev ide nce is vi ewed in the light most

f av ora b l e to the Stat e, a

rea son ab l e j ury coul d have c ome to the s am e c onc l us i on after consi der ing Dr . Jo nes’ t est imony, pa rt icular ly where s he pr o vid ed t he o nly med ica l t es t imo ny ad mit t ed at t r ial. Fin ally, defendan

t assert s that t he ap pellat e co ur t ’s r eas oning-10- wo uld ha ve al l owe d de f en da nt to b e i nd i cte d f ormurder reg ard l es s of when or how Ruiz di

ed si mpl y b ecause h

e was a quadripl

egi c. He adds that th e l eg i sl atu re ’s pu rp ose s of pr ov i di n g f or p rop orti

on ate penal ties wh ile recog ni

zin g defendants’ rehab i l i

tativ e poten tia l s are ad eq ua t ely satisf ie d by the sentence s tot alin

g 100 yea rs he wa s a l rea dy servi ng f or off enses related to Ruiz’s sho o t ing

. T he se pr io rse nt en ce s e ffec t ive ly sent ence hi m to li fe i n pri son. See 720 ILCS 5/1–2(c) (West 2006)

. Defend ant ar gue s t hat add inganother natural l if e sentenc e for Ruiz’s murder would be

arbi trary and opp re ssive , pa r t icu lar ly whe n Ruiz went on to p erf

orm man y of the sam e activ ities as an able -bodied 22- yea r - o ld and Dr . J o nes co uld no t sp ec ify th e t ype o f ba ct er ia underl yi ng hi s pneum onia

. We i ni ti al l y note tha t the su f f i ci en cy of Dr. Jon es ’ te sti mon y to me et the Stat e’s b

urden of estab l i sh i n g c au sa ti on appe ar s u n re l ate d to defendant’s sentenci

ng argum

ent. Even i

f def en dant ’s se nt encing
ar gument is co nsid er ed , he fails to ci te a n y ca se l aw or oth er au th ori ty f orhi s po si

tion, and we h

ave f ound none. He also does not r ai se a constitutional

challenge t o t he mand at o ry life sta tute or i ts a ppl i ca ti on in hi s case. The le gis la

ture has chosen

to ma ke a n atu

ral l if e sentenc e mandatory

if the defe ndan t ha s previously

been convi

cted o f f irst degr ee m urder. 7 30 IL CS 5/5 –8–1( a)(1)(c )(i) (We st 2006 ). W e con cl ude t hat defend ant ’s claim ru ns co unt er t o t he clea r leg islative intent to prov

i def or l i f eti me i m prison men t f or of f en de rs de em

ed too dangerous t o be r ele as ed int o so cie t y. T he cla ss o f ind iv idu als f or wh om t he le gis la

ture has chosen to man

date man dator y l if e sentenc es in cl udes t ho se , su ch as de fen da nt , co nvic te d of more than one fi rst degree m urder. We will not ove rr ide t he clea r a nd exp re ss will of t he l egi slaturein

enacti ng th e m andatory l i f e-s en ten ci ng sta tute b as ed on def endan t’s b areas sertion

that t he addi

tion of a n

atural l if e sentenc e f orhis lat es t mu r de rco nvi ct io n w o ul d b e a r bit r ar y and oppr essive under the ci rcumstances i

n thi s case. Defend ant ’s unr elat ed s ent encing
ar gument do es no t alte r o ur co nclusio n t hat t he Stat e presented sufficient causation ev

ide nce f or a re aso nable jur y to find defend ant gui l ty b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t.-11- B. Electroni c Recordin

g Stat ute The sec ond is sue rai sed on appeal is whether the a ppel l ate court erredby fail

ingto appl

y se cti on 103–2.1(b) of the Code of Cri mi nal Procedu re o f 1963 (725 IL CS 5/1 03–2.1 (b) (W est 200 6))
r et r o ac t ive ly. Th

i s iss ue of sta tutor y i n ter pr eta ti on pr es en ts a q ue sti on of la w to be decided de novo on ap peal

. Pe o p l e v

. B ro wn , 225 Ill . 2d 188, 19 8 ( 20 07 ). Th e p ri mar y goa l i n con str ui n g a sta tute i s to det er mine an d e ffec t ua t e t he int en t o f t he leg isla t ur e. T he mo st r elia ble
means of ac com pl i sh i ng tha t goa l i s to ap ply the p l ai

n a nd ord i na ry m eaning of

th e statu tory l an gu ag e. W e m

ay n ot de pa rt f rom th e stat ut e’s pl

ai n l an gua geby rea di ng i n e xc ep ti on s, l i

m i tations , or co ndit ions that con

f l i ct wi th the l egi slature’ s i

nten t. In re Detention of Hardin , 238 Il

l . 2d 33, 4 0 (201 0). Section 103–2. 1(b) stat es: “An oral , wri

tten, o r sign la

nguage stateme

nt of an accused ma de as a result o f a cus todi al i n ter rog ati on at a police sta ti on or othe r pl ac e of de ten ti on sh al l b e p re su med to be inadmissible as evide nce a gainst t he ac cus ed in anycrim in al pro ceeding *** unl

ess: (1) an el ectronic recordin

g is ma de of the custodial inter ro gat ion; and (2) the recording is subs tantial ly accurate and n ot int en t io na lly

altered.” 725 ILCS 5/103– 2.1(b) ( West 2006)

. Al thoughthis

provisi on was ena

cted in 2003, t he leg isla t ur e e xp r es sly del ay ed i ts eff ective date until

Jul y 2005. Defendant’s brief

relies sol ely o n t he ar gu men t pr es en t ed in his pe ti ti on for l eave to appeal. In

that petition, he contends

the trial court erredin denying his mot ion in limine to excl ude hi s 1 995 non

-vi de orec orde d c us todial

sta tem en t be ca us e i t vi ol ate d s ec ti on

103–2 .1(b ). At oralargu

men t, h owev er , de f

ense cou n se l ca n di dl y con ce de d to t he co ur t t hat de fend ant ’s s t at eme nt wa s mad e be fo re t he stat ut e’s effect ivedate. In additi on, she agreed that the l eg i sl atu re’ s dec i si on to del ay i m pl em en tati on of th e rec ordi

n g r eq ui re men t f or tw o ye ars establ is hed th at i t i n ten de d th e rec ordi n g r eq ui re men t not to be appl ie d
r et r o ac t ive ly

to ex cl ude cus todi

al sta te ment s made years befo re t he statut e’s en

actmen t date.-12- Mo re ove r, defen

se counsel

noted at o ral argum

ent that she wa s un ab le to fi

nd a ny ca se law t o s upp or t t he ar gument t hat t he l egi slaturei

n ten de d th e statu te to ap pl y r et r o ac t ive ly. No t ab ly, nei ther of t he two appe l l ate dec i sions c i ted by the State , People v. Buck, 361 I ll. App. 3d 923 (2 005), and People v. Armstrong, 395 Ill . App. 3d 606 (2 009 ), sup po rt t he r et ro act ive app licatio n of t he se ct ion. In Buck , t he tri al

court ref

use d def endan t’s m odi f i ed j ury instr uct ions based on s ection 103–2.1(b). The appel la te c o urt aff irm ed, not ing t hat t he st at ut e und er lyi ng t he mod ifi

cat ions wa s n

ot in effe ct wh en t he de fen da nt mad e h is cus t od ial sta t ement and t hat t he modifi ed j ur y i n str uc ti ons ha d not y

et be en adopted. Buck , 36 1 I ll. App. 3d a t 941 -4 2. In Armstrong , o nly one of the def endan t’s three sta tem en ts had b een el

ectronical ly recorded, but the a ppel

l ate court he ld that all three statements were properly adm itted b e cau se t he vic t im was sti l l be i ng trea ted at the h osp i tal an d had not ye t died when t he st at ement s we re made, making th e statu te i na ppl i ca bl e. N ei the r of these cases can

be co nst ru ed t o s upp or t defend ant ’s ar gument t hat t he ele ct r o nic recording requi remen t should b e i

mposed retroactivel

y here. W e c onc lude t hat t he legislat ur e’s e xpr ess d ecisio n t o d elay the enfo rc ement of

t he elec t ro nic rec or ding r eq uir eme nt un t il 20 05 , ne ar ly 10 years aft er t he cu st od ial sta t ement at iss ue in t his case, establ is hes it s in tent t hat the statut e not be applie d retr oact iv ely , as the defense conceded. In

addi tion, def endan t has f ai le d t o c ite a ny case law for t he
re troacti v i ty arg um en t pre sente d i

n h i s p eti ti on f orl ea ve t o ap pe al. Ac co r di ng ly, we de cline t o o ver rid e t he w ill of t he legislat ur e and
reverse the trial

court ’s den

ia l of defen dant’s moti on in limine to excl ude his 1 99 5 c us t o dia lsta tem en t be ca us e i t vi ol ate d s ec ti on 103–2 .1(b ).

III. CONCLUSION For the stated reasons, we conclude tha t def en da n t h as f ai l ed to me et hi s b urden of sho win g t ha t no r ea so na ble jury co uld have fou nd t ha t t he St at e p r o ve d t he ele men t o f ca us at io n be yo nd a r ea so na ble dou b t. We al so concl

ude that the

el ec troni c re cord

i ng req ui rem en t of
se cti on 103–2. 1(b) (7 25 I LC S 5/ 103 –2. 1(b) (W es t 200 6)) doe s n

ot ap ply retr oact iv

ely in this c ase to bar the adm is si on of his 1995-13- custodial statement to t he polic e. His statement was properly

adm itted at tr i al . Acc ordi

n gl y , w e af f i rm th e a pp el l ate cou rt j udgm en t.
Appellate court judgment affirmed

.