1 FIFTH DIVISION January

14, 2011 No. 1-07- 2317 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS,

Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. MARCO S G ARCI A,

De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appe al fro m the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty No. 05 CR 22484 Ho no r ab le Jam es M . Sch reier, Judge Presidin

g. JUD GE EP ST EI N de livered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Jo sep h Go rd on a nd Ho wse co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Fol l owi ng a j ury trial, de f en da n t Ma rc os Garci

a w as f oun d g ui l ty of the f irst degree m

urder of Bo nita M cCo nnell and

sen tenc ed to 47 y

ears of i m pri son men t. D ef en da n t ap pe als, con ten di n g th at: (1) the State f ai l ed to prov e h i m gui l ty of first deg re e mur der beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt ; and (2 ) t he St at e made pr ejudicial co mments d ur ing its o pening st at ement and closi ng and rebuttal arguments, dep rivingdef

endan t of a f ai r tri al . Def

endan t asks that we reduc e hi s con

vi cti on to i nv olu ntary ma nsl aughter or second degree murder

and r emand f

or re sente nc i ng , or that w e re

ve rs e h i s c onv i cti on an d r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. Fo rt he r ea so ns s t at ed be lo w, we affir m. BACK GROUND On Jul y 31, 200 5, B oni

ta M cC onn

el l wa s s hot in the he ad an d k illed by a s t r ay bu llet wh ile dri vi ng w i th her si ster, Joyc e Brooks , down Cicero A venue i n Chi cago, Il l i noi s.1-07-2317

2

Earli er t ha t da y, d efe nd an t an d h is fr ien ds Pe t er Jo hns o n, Ju an Ca mp os, an d R ud y Ca n tu dr ove to a W

al-M art store n

ea r th e i nte rs ec ti on of Cice ro Avenue and West 72nd Street. All four m en were par t of o r a ffi

liated wit h t he sa me st re et gang , the Tw o-T wo B oy s. W h i l e a t th e W al -M ar t, defen dant and h

is fri ends attracted the

attenti on of ri val gang m em bers F ide l Morales, Ren

e Jai me , and Gu sta vi o Me l ec i o. Al

thou gh the men di d n ot know each other, they rec ogniz ed each ot her ’s ga ng colors. The gr ou ps e xchang ed t hre at ening loo ks, but no w or ds, and hu rr ied t o t heir ve hicle s a ft er leaving t he st o r e; de fen da nt an d h is friends to Jo hnson’s bl ue Dodge Grand Caravan , and Morale s and hi s f ri ends to a b l ack Li

nc oln Town C ar. Jo hnso n, a f

rien d a n d c owor ker of de f en da n t, testifi ed that he was cl osely

aff il ia ted with, but not a m em ber of, the Two-Two Bo ys . Johnson stated th at aft er t he t wo gr o up s hu rr ied t o t he ir vehi cles, they ci rcled e ach other and h

e wai ted for the Lin

coln to le ave t

h e W al -M art p ar

ki n g l ot. Af ter th e L i n col n tur n ed sou th onto Ci cero A

ve nu e, h e w ai ted a m i nu te a nd di d the s am e. S oon there af ter, he n o t ice d t he L inco ln po sit io ned do wn t he r o ad in t he e xit lane o f a s er vice alley o f a Target sto re, also located on Cicero Aven ue. Johnson stated that he was af raid that t he Linc o ln w o uld ram the side of hi s Caravan if h e continued to drive on Ci cero and so he pu lled int o t he alle y t o av o id a possible coll is ion, b rin gin g hi s van al ongside t he Lin co ln, se pa r at ed o nly b y a low t riang ular median. A cc or ding t o J ohns on, Morales then opened the rear driv

er’s si de door of the Li

ncol n, threw so mething at his van and go t back in the Li nc ol n. Joh ns on did n ot know what the thrown obje ct was buthe did not t hink it w as a gun a nd he d id no t see anyone in the L incoln wit h a we apo n. Aft er his van was hi t, Johnson then began to drive down the alley . He t hen h

eard t wo gunshot s an d lo oked over to see def endan t hangi ng out t he fro nt pa ss en

ger w i n dow of th e v an an d f ac i n g th e L i n col n wi th1-07-2317

3

a gun i n ha nd. Def endan t came b ack

into t he van a nd t old Jo hnso n t o “f* **ing dr ive” and “get t he f*** ou t of he re .” Jo hnso n left t he alley and d ro ve down79th Street to ward Harlem Avenue, whe

n a pol i ceof f i cer, w ho had just re ceived a disp at ch abo ut t he sho ot ing, p ulled him over . D efenda nt han ded t he gu n t o C ampo s and t old Jo hnso n t o “k eep his f***ing mou t h shut ” and remi nded h im that he kn ew wh ere h i s f i an cé e l i v ed an d h i s s i ste r w orked . D ef

en da n t, C am pos , a n d C an tuthen jum ped ou t of t he va

n a nd f l ed on f oot. A ddi ti ona l pol i ceof f i cers arr i ve d a nd Joh ns on was questi oned but did n ot say anything t o t he po lice abo ut t he sho ot ing. Aft er Jo yce Br oo ks w as br ou ght t o t he sc ene but failed to po siti

vel y i dentif y the van, Johnson was all owed t o leave wi

th several traffi

c citations. He t est ifi ed t hat app ro ximately one mont h late r d efenda nt ask ed him t o bu rn t he van bu t he refuse d. On Septembe

r 1, 2005, off

ic ers of the Ch

ic ago polic e departmen

t came to Johnson’s

resi dence as

part of t he ir in ve st iga t io n o f t he killing , at wh ich t ime he t old t hem abo ut t he sho ot ing and directed them to the resi dences of

defen dant, Campos, an

d Cantu. Cam pos test if ie d that he was a m

em ber of the Two-Two Bo ys , as was ever yone e lse in the van on the day

of the sh oot in g. He stated, in relevan

t part , that when

Johnson pul

le d al ongside t he Linc o ln in the servi ceal

l ey , h e s aw Moral esj um p out of the Li nc ol n a nd thr ow a bo t t le, o r so mething si m i l ar, at the van. W

hen the obje ct st uck t he van, he du cke d do wn in t he re ar se at, b eh i n d def en da n t, and could n

ot see an y thi ng . Ca m possta ted tha t asJoh ns on be gan to driv e down the a l l ey, he he ard two gunsh

ot s several

sec ond apa rt and w hen he lo ok ed u p he saw defend ant co ming back int o t he passenger side wi

ndow, tellin

g Johnson to “get the f*** out of here.” A s Johns on pull ed aw ay , Ca m possaid that defendant laughed and said “that’s w hat those p ussies get.” Campos stated that when the van wa s l ate r p ul l ed ov er on 79 th Street , defen

dant han ded hi m the gun and they both fl ed.1-07-2317

4

Cam pos an d def endan t ran i nto a n earb y resi den tia l yard and def endan t t old hi m to hide the gun

in a pile of w oo d lo gs. Campo s hid t he gu n and t he t wo men par t ed w ays. C ampo s t est ifi ed t hat in a subs equ ent teleph

one conversation defen

dan t gave him the impre ssio n t hat he had dispo sed of t he gun, t elling

Cam pos not t o “trip,” “I got that. Good job.” On cross-exam in ation, Cam

pos said tha

t he did n ot actuall y s ee Mo ra les t hro w so mething at t he van be cau se he wa s a lre ad y du ck ed do wn in fear t ha t Mo r ale s w as sh

oot in g at them. On redi

rect exam in ation, however, he stated t hat he saw Mo ra les t hro w so mething at t he van. Cant u, who was i

n the b ack

o f t he va n w it h C amp o s, t es t ified , in r ele va nt pa r t , t ha t he t o ld Joh ns on to pull in to the servi

ce alle y a longs ide the Li ncol n. He statedthat he saw Moral es j ump out of the Li nc ol n, bu t he the n d uc ke d dow

n and d id no t see Morales throw any thin g. Cantu was im peached wit h a sw or n st at ement he ga ve t o t he po lice an d w it h hi s g r an d j ur y t es t imo ny, in whi ch he st at ed t hat he sa

w M or al esthr ow s ometh

i ng at the van . Ca

ntu f urth er te sti f i ed tha t asJoh ns on pull ed awa y, he sa w t he Linco ln tu rn a ro und, at which po int Jo hnso n slow ed d ow n and d efenda nt le aned out the win

dow and fi

red a gun once or twice

in the direction of the Li

ncol n. He stated that defend ant had h

is shi rt pull ed over the botto m h al f of hi s f ace. He al so stat ed that h e n ev er s aw anyone in the L incoln wit h a we apo n. Cantu conf irm ed that when John

son was l ater pulled

ove r by t he police, defen

dant han ded Cam pos the gun bef

ore fl eei ng. He stated that he a l so ra n fro m the po lice beca use of t he sho ot ingand b ecause h e was carry

in g ma rij uana. Can

tu denie d la

ter spe aking to de fen da nt ab o ut t he sho o t ing , bu t wa s a ga in impe ac he d w it h hi s sw or n st at ement , in which he stat ed that defendan

t t old hi m to “just f orget ab out i

t” a nd “ [y ]ou d on’ t knownothing.” On crossexaminat ion, Ca

n tu ag r ee d w it h d efe nse co un se l t ha t he sa w a met al o bje ct in Mo ra les’ hand as he1-07-2317

5

jum ped out of the Li

ncol n, thathe thought it was a gun, that he thought Mor al es was sho ot ing at t he van, an d that a f ter J ohn son began to driv e down the alle

y he thought the Li

ncol n turned to co me

after t he m. Morales

testifi ed t ha t he wa s p r ev io us ly amember o f the Sat an’s D isciples ga ng, a r ival of t he Two-T wo Boys. He stated that h e a n d s ev eral of h i s f rien dswen t to Wal -M ar t on Ju l y 31 , 20 05 , to buy spray pai nt. Whi le at Wal -Mart, t hey

saw defen dant’s group and exchan

ged threateni

ng l ooks f orseveral mi nutes. They

le ft the store soo n af

ter de fen da nt ’s gr o up , hu rr ied t o t he irveh icle a nd le ft t he par king lo t , t ur ning so ut h on C icero Avenu e. M or ales sa id t hat befo re t hey pulled o ut of t he par king lo t , he sa w d efe nd an t in t he va n w it h his shi rt pull ed up to co ver the botto m h al f of hi s f ace. He testi f i ed th at they

were i m medi atel y caug ht i n traf f i c on C i cero Avenue an

d pull ed i nto t he serv

ic e alle y to turnar ou nd whe n Jo hnso n’s van p ulled up next t o t hem. Mo ra les said t hat he then stepped out of t he Linco ln and t hre w a s pr ay paint can at the van. The v

an b egan to drive down

the alle y as Ja ime turned around and i nto t he al le y ent ra nce lane . D efenda nt was duc king d ow n, but he sai d that he coul d s eesom

eon e w i th a t-sh i rt pul l ed ove r hi s f ac e l ea ni ng out of the f ron t pa ss en ger wi nd ow of the va n. Moral esdi d n ot see def endan t fi re the gun, but he h

eard three gunsh

ot s. He stated t hat af t er t he gu ns ho t s J aime imme di at ely p ul led o ut o f t he alle y an d d r o ve aw ay. Ja i me te sti f i ed th at h e is a mem b er of th e P ar ty People gan

g, a rival of the Two -Two Boys. His t es t imo ny lar ge ly t r ac ke d t ha t o f Mo r ale s. Ja ime st at ed t hat he was dri vi ng the Li ncol n, and af ter leaving W al

-M ar t, he m i sta ken l y tur n ed sou th onto Ci cero Aven

ue and pul

le d in to the servi

ce alle y to turn around. Johnson’s v an then pul le d along side his Linco ln, Mo ra les jumped ou t and t hre w t he paint can, an

d the van began to driv e down the alle

y. Ja im e stated t hat

he t hen t ur ned his c ar ar ou nd1-07-2317

6

to face t he van. Altho ugh he initially t est ifi ed t hat he did s o w itho ut t he inte nt ion o f ramming the van, he late r a dmitt ed t hat he pl an n ed on ra m m i n g i t i f i ts occupa nts d i d an y thi ng h e perc ei ve d to be m

ore threatenin g. He t hen sa w so meone with a p artial ly covered fa

ce l ean out the front passenge r side wi nd owwit h a gu n and shoot at hi m. Jai me heard two gunshots and i mm edi ately turned the car ar o un d a nd dr o ve aw ay. The St at e p r es en t ed a n umb er o f o t he rwit ne sse s, i nc lud ing po lice o ffice r s a nd fo r en sic sc i en ti sts an d in ve st iga t o r s. T he y t es t ified , in re l ev an t pa rt, th at a spray pai nt can an d two cart ridge casesf i red f rom a sem i automati c wea

pon w ererecovered

at the scene of the s

hoot in g. The m edi cal exam in er deter m i n ed th at B oni ta M cC on n el l wa s k i l l ed b y a g unsh ot wou n d to th e l ef t s id e of her head. De fen da nt did no t ch alle ng e t he St at e’ s fo r en sic evi den ce, wh i ch establ i shed, inter

alia , that t he two cart ridge cases were f i re d f rom th e s am e 9 -m i l l i mete r w ea pon, a n d th at M oral es ’ f

i n gerp ri n ts wer e fo und o n t he lid of t he sp ra y paint c an. Te st ify ingo n his o wn be ha lf, de fen da nt ad mit t ed t ha t he kille d B o nit a M cC o nne ll, al though he stated t ha t he did not know i t until Can tu told h i m a wee k later. De f

endan t testi f i ed that be f

ore ent er ingthe alle

y, Cam pos handed h

im the gun that

kil le d McConne ll . He stated tha t when Joh ns on dr ove in to the alle y h e saw an obje ct t hat he believed t o be a hand gun in Mo ra les’ hand , a nd when he heard som

ethin g hi t t he van, he b elie

ved Morales was sh

oot in g at them. Def

endan t stat ed that at t he ti me of the sh ooti ng he wa s af rai d f orhis life and t he lives of his friend s. H e sa id t hat he fired t he gu n t o sc ar e o ff

t he men in the Linc o ln a nd he did no t int en d t o hu r t o rkill a nyo ne . He fur t he rsa id that he sh ot the gun wi th h i s w ea k han d, d i d n ot ai m, i ntended to fi

re only once, an d sh ot upan

d to t he side o f the Linco ln. Defe ndan t denie d say

in g “that’s wh

at t hos e pu ssies g et ,” denied t hre at ening1-07-2317

7

Jo hnso n, denied ask ing Jo hnso n t o bu rn t he van, and d enied d ispo sing o f the gun a fte r hiding it in the pile of w oo d lo gs. Defend ant al so recounted anincident t hat oc cur re d in No vember 2 004 when he was sho t and a fe llo w g an g me mbe rwa s k illed by an un ide nt ified as sa ilant . De fen da nt st at ed t ha t t his incident contributed to his f eelin g that his lif

e wa s in dang er on J uly 31, 200 5. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, defen dant conceded that he sh

ot in the direction of Cicero Aven ue. On Jun e 11, 200 7, altho ugh t he t rial co ur t allowe d a s eco nd de gr ee mur der and i nv olu ntary ma nsl aughter in struction, the jury

returned a general

verdict fi ndi ng def endan t gu ilt y o f the f

irst degree m urder of Boni ta McC onnel

l . Defe ndan

t’s motion f

or a new trial

was deni ed and h e was sen tenc ed to 47 y

ears of i m pri sonm en t. Thi s ap peal f oll owed. AN AL YSIS I. The Stat e Met Its Burden for Fi rst Degree Murder Defend ant firs t cla ims t he St at e fa iled t o pr o ve him gu ilty o f fi

rst degree murder bey

ond a reas onab l e doubt.

“W hen a defe ndan t challe nges the s

uff ic ie ncy of the evi

dence, a cri

mi nal con vi cti on will not be se t aside unless t he evidence is so i m proba bl e or un sati sf

actory that i t creates reas onab l e doubt of de f

endan t’s gu i l t. [Ci tation .] It i s not wit hin the pur viewo f t he r ev iew ing co ur t t o r et ry a d ef en da nt wh er e t he su ffic ien cy of th e evi dence i s a t i ss ue . [C i tati on .] R ath er , i t i s th e res pon si b i l i ty of th e tr i er of f act to det er mine the cre di

bi l i ty of wit nesse s, t he we ight t o be given t o t heir t est imony and t he reas onab l e i

nf eren ces to be dra wn f rom th e ev i den ce. [C i tation .] T he rel evan

t que sti on on review i s whether, after co nsidering the evi dence in the li ght most1-07-2317

8

fav o r ab le to th e Stat e, any rational trier of f

act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el em en ts of t he cri me b ey ond a reas onab l e doubt. [Ci

tation .]” People v. Rodriguez , 336 Il l . Ap p. 3d 1, 1 4-15 (2 002). “[T ]he reviewi

ng c ourt m

us t a llow all re aso nable infere nces fro m the r eco rd in favor of t he prosecution.” People v. Cunningham , 212 Il l . 2d 274 , 280 (2 004). Defend ant ma

in tains that his convi ction sh ould be reduced to the le sser

off en se of i nv olu ntary ma nsl aughter because the evidence bel

ow est abl ish ed only recklessconduct. The Stat e responds that there is no q ues t ion d efenda nt killed Bo nita M cCo nnell and t he ev ide nc e s uffic ien t ly establ is hes that he did s o w ith t he r equ isite ment al st at e fo r a t he first deg re e mur der co nvictio n. “A person who kill

s an i ndi vi dual without lawf

ul justif ic at ion c o mm

its f irst degree murd er if, in per for ming the act s which c aus e t he de at h: (1) he eit he rint en ds t o kill or do gr ea t bod i l y ha rm to tha t i nd i vi dua l or an othe r, or k now s th at suc h a ctswi l l ca us e dea th to th at i nd i vi dua l or an othe r; or (2) he kn o ws t ha t su ch ac t s c r ea t e a st r o ng pr o ba bilit y o f de at h o rgr ea t bo dily ha rm to tha t i nd i vi dua l or an othe r; or (3) he is attempting or comm ittin g a forci ble fel ony other than s econd degree
m urder.” 720 IL CS 5/9 -1(a) (W

est 200 8). “A person intends, or act s in tentionall y or with i

ntent, t o acco mpl

ish a resul t o r engage i

n conduct descri bed b y th e statu

te def i n i n g th e of f ense , w h en h i s c on sc i ous

ob j ecti v e or pu rp ose i s to accomplish

that r esult or engage in that co nduct.” 7 20 ILCS 5/ 4- 4 ( West 200 8) . “A person know s, oracts knowin

gly or with knowledge of *** [t]he resul t o f h is or her conduc t, described by the1-07-2317

9

sta tute defi ni ng the off ense, wh en he or sh e i s consci

ousl y awar e t ha t t ha t r es ult is p r ac t ica lly ce r t ain to be cause d by

hi s conduct.” 720 IL CS 5/4 -5 (W es t 200 8). “ De term i na ti on of def endan t’s me ntal sta te ma y be i nf erred f rom c i rcum stan tia l evi den ce, a nd th i s task i s pa rtic ularl y sui ted to the j ury .” People v. Mo ore , 358 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 68 3, 688 ( 2005) . Here, vie win g t he ev ide nc e in a ligh t most favorabl

e to t he State, a rat iona

l tri er o f fac t co uld fi nd, bey ond a re as on ab l e doub

t, that def en da n t i n ten de d to k i l l or do grea

t b odi l y h ar m to another, or t hat he knew h

is acts created a stro ng probabi li ty of death or greatbodi

l y ha rm to another. I t is undi sputed that defendan

t kil le d Bo nit a M cC o nne ll. H is int en t t o kill can b e i nf erred from the a

ct of f iri ng two bull

ets in the direction of an occupi ed car and a crowded

street (People

v. Smith , 258 Ill . App. 3d 1003, 1027 (1994) (“[t]he inten t t o murder can b e i

nf erred from the a

ct of fi rin g a gun at a p ers on

b ec au se th e n atu ral ten den cy of such an act i s to destroy another’s l if e”)), and his words and conduct

after the sh

oot in g. Th e f ac t tha t de f en da nt k i l l ed Bon i ta M cC onn

el l , i ns tead of one of t he occupants of the Li

ncol n, does not mean

that he actedwi

th out th e req ui si te i n ten t. “Unde r t he do ct rine of t ra nsferr ed int ent , if a de fendant sh oots at on e p er son [] wi

th the in tent t o kil l, b ut kil ls an uni ntended victim, he m

ay be conv icted of the crim

e of m urder for the death of the uni ntended vi cti m .” People v. Thompson , 313 Ill . App. 3d 510, 51 6 ( 20 00 ) . Alt er na t ive ly, it is no t un r ea so na ble to concl ude that defen

dant knew that his actions were practical

ly certain to r esu l

t i n th e dea th or substantial

i njury of another. See People v. Lake , 298 Ill . App. 3d 50, 54 ( 199 8) (“I nt ent ionally fi ring a weapon at an occupi ed bui ldi ng i s an act

that has a natural

tendency t o ca us e d ea t h o rgr ea t bo dily ha rm an d is of such a ch aracter

as to de f ea t an y as sertion of

reckle ssne ss.”); accord People v. Mi mms, 312 Ill . App. 3d 226, 231 (2000) (defenda nt presum ed to know t hat

firin g a gu n a t an o cc up ied ho me1-07-2317

10

crea ted a strong prob ab i l i

ty of death or great b odi l

y ha rm to the occup an

ts of th at hom e). Al thoughdefen

dant argues thathi s testim ony e stablis

hed t hat he fired up a nd aw ay fro m the Linco ln and t hat he did no t intend t o k ill or injure a nyone, t he j ury ’sappa ren t decision to di sreg ard his account was not unreasonabl e i n l igh t o f the other wi

tnesses’ statements an

d the ph ys ic a l evi dence. For exam

ple , the death of Boni

ta McConnel

l, wh o was driv

in g beh in d and perpen

dic ula r to the Li ncol n, can sup po rt t he co nclusio n t hat defend ant did no t fire up an d a wa y fro m t he Linc o ln and Cicer o Ave nue; a co nclusio n also sup po rt ed by t he t est imony of Jo hnso n and J aime. Fu rt her , t he fact that defenda

nt had the gun

and pul le d hi s shi rt o ver hi s f ace bef o r e e nt er ing t he alle y st r o ng ly su gg ests that he i

ntended t o d o ha rm. I t was not unr eas ona ble for t he jur y to co nclude t hat defend ant fi redat t he Li

ncoln wi th the intent t o kill

or cau se great bodil

y h arm to its o ccupants, or t hat he acted wi th t he kn o wle dg e t ha t do ing so wa s p r ac t ica lly ce r t ain to resul t in the death or sub stan

tia l i nj ury of a nothe r. In re aching this concl

usion, the cour t rejects defendant’s assertion that this case is anal ogous to People v. Andersch , 1 07 I ll. Ap p. 3d 81 0 (1982), and People v. Hoover, 250 Ill . App. 3d 338 (1993 ), both of whi

ch stated that pointi

ng a l oaded g un at anot her can constitut e recklessness . Andersch and Hoove r in volv ed defe ndan ts who accide

ntall y di scharg ed thei

r weapons. Here, defend ant did no t ac cid en t ally fir e h is we ap on . D ef en da n t’s argu men t th at Andersch and Hoover are co nt ro lli ng be ca us e in t ho se ca se s t he “d efe nd an t s c o nsc io us ly dis r eg ar de d t he su bst an t ia l ri sks in po inting a l oaded gun atan o t he rpe r so n, jus t as Ga r cia co nsc io us ly dis regarded the substantial

risks presented by fi ring t he gu n in the direction of the Li ncol n an d Ci cero Aven

ue,” is unconv in ci ng. Gi ven t he facts presen

ted at t rial, it was reasonable for the j ury to conclude tha t defenda nt in tentional ly fi red1-07-2317

11

his weapon at the Li

ncol n i n the di rection of Ci

cero Aven

ue and that he di

d s o w ith the

i nte nt or knowl edge

requi red of f i rst deg ree m urder. II. Second Degree Murder Is Not Warranted Defend ant contends, al

ternativel y, that we sh

ould redu ce hi s convi

ction to second degree murder be ca us e the evi

de nc e e sta

bl i sh estha t he ac ted un der an un rea son ab l e b el i ef tha t the us e of deadl y f orce was j ustif

i ed. A sec ond de gree m

urder c onv

i cti on i s ap

propriate wh

ere, inter al

ia , “at t he t ime of t he killing [t he de fendant ] be lieves t he circ umst anc es to be such that, if they exi sted, wo uld jus t ify

or exonerate t he ki

ll in g under the pri

nci ple s stated in A

rticle 7 of thi s Code [720 ILCS 5/7-1 et seq . (West 2008)], but hi s or her belief [was] unreasonable.” 720 ILCS 5/9-2( a)(2) (West 2008) . Defendan

t bears t he burden of provin g this m it i gat ing fact or by a pr epo nder ance of t he evi dence. 720 ILCS 5/9-2(c) (West 2008). In other wor ds, “[o]nce the State has proven f irst degree murder beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt , t he de fendant must pr ove by a preponderance of

the evi dence *** that he be lieve d t ha t t he cir cu ms tances just if ie d usi ng sel f-def ense, b ut t hat hi s bel

ie f was unreasonab le .” People v. Haw kins , 296 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 83 0, 836 ( 1998) . “To est ablish self-de fense, t he de fend ant must show some evi dence that unl awful force was threatened aga

in st hi m;the danger

of h ar m wa s i m m i n en t; he was not the a ggres sor; that he actuall

y b elie ved that a danger ex

is ted, force was ne ces sary to av ert t he dan

ger, and the type an

d am ount o f f orce was necess ary;and that hi s belie fs were reasonabl

e. [Citations.] W

hi le the la wdoes n ot requi re th e a gg re ss or to be arm ed f or s el f -de f ense to be j us ti f i ed , i t m us t appe ar th

at the aggr

es sor is ca pa ble of i nf l i cti ng s erious b odi l

y ha rm wit ho ut t he u se o f a

dea dly weap on, and is int ending1-07-2317

12

to do so. [Ci

tations.]” Id . at 837. De fe ndant mai nt ain s t ha t be ca us e t he ev ide nc e e st ab lishe d t ha t he ha d a n a ct ua l, alb eit unreasonab le , b el

i ef i n th e n ec es si ty of us i ng de adl y f orce i n s el f -de f ense , th e tri

al cou rt er red i n n ot re duc inghis co nvictio n t o s eco nd degree m urder. The Stat e responds thatthere was am ple evi dence to support t he concl

usi on that def

endan t di d not b el

i ev e hi s actions we

re nece ssa ry t o pr o t ec t his life and, theref

ore, that h

e was not acti ng i n s elf -def en se. W e agre e. “W hether a ki ll in g is jus tif ie d un der th e l aw of self-def ense i s a questi on of f

act [c itat ions ], and the fact fi nder is not requ ired to accept as tr ue t he defendant’s evi den ce i n s upport of that defen

se [ci tations.] Instead, the trier

of f act i s obl i ge d to consider the probabi

li ty or im probabi li ty of the ev

ide nce, the ci

rcumstances sur ro unding th e ev en

t, a n d al l of th e wit ne sses’ testim

ony. [Ci tations]” People v. Huddleston , 243 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 12, 101 8-19 (1 993). In the case sub judice , defen dant off ered some ev

ide nce that he was

actin g in self-def ense. The occupant s o f bot h v ehi cl es conf irm ed that they b el onged to r iv al gangs, that the groups exch anged me naci ng l ooks at the Wal

-Mart, t hat Morales jumpe d out of t he Linco ln with so mething in his h an d w he n Jo hns o n’s va n d r o ve int o t he alle y, t ha t so met hing t he n hit the van , and t hat t he Linc o ln turn ed to face t he van a s t he lat t er dr ove awa y. Ho weve r, t he St at e su pplied t est imony re but t ingdefendan

t’s self -defense claim. Fo r inst ance , t he St at e intr od uce d unc ont ra dict ed t est imony that defend ant had a gun a nd pul l ed hi s shi rt ov er h i s f ac e b ef ore e nte ri ng the al l ey , an d that John

son was dr iving away whe n defend ant sho t at t he Linco ln. The St at e also intr od uce d t est imony that after firing the gun at the Li

ncol n, def endan t laughe d and said “that’s what t hose pussies get,” then f le d1-07-2317

13

f rom the police, to ld h

is fri ends to keep quiet

ab out the i

nc i dent, an

d de stroy ed or tri ed to de stroy evi dence. No ne of thi s beh

avi or suggests self

-defen se. Given t his te st imony, it w as r eas ona ble for t he j ury t o d isreg ar d de fendant ’s t est imony and conc l ude that def

endan t was the agg

ress or. We th

eref ore affirm defenda nt ’s first deg re e mur der co nvictio n. C. The St at e’s O pening, Clos ing and R ebut t al Remar ks D id No t Co nst itu t e Plain E rr or and

Defe ndan t Forfei ted Any Obj ection to Those Remarks on A ppeal Fi na lly, def

endan t argues that he was

den i ed a f ai r tri al be caus e the

State m ade pre jud icia l remarks during i ts o peni ng state men

t and closi

n g and rebuttal a

rgumen ts. The Stat e responds that defend ant wai

v ed an y ch al l en ge to the remarks

ma de at t rial by hi s fai lure to p reserve his

objections. “In or der t o p re ser ve an

i ss ue f or re v i ew , the g en

eral ru l e is th at a defen dant mus t bot h obj ect at t rial and f i l e a wr i tten post-trial

motion rai si ng th e i ssue.” People v. Anderson , 250 Ill . App. 3d 439, 451 (1993 ). De f

en da n t doe s n ot co n test th at h e f ai l ed to pr ope rl y pr es er v e h i s ob j ecti on s b y ob j ecti n g to t he Sta te’ s c om men ts a t tri al an d r aisi n g th ose ob j ecti on s i n h i s p ost -tri

al m otion . Inste ad , he a ss er

ts that the Stat e’sremark s co nst itu t e plain er ro r a nd t her efo re avo id t he ge ner al for feitu re ru le. We dis agree. “P lainerror is a narrow and l im ited exception to the general waiver rule.” People v. Pastorino , 91 Il

l . 2d 178 , 188 (1 982). “[T ]he pla in- er r o rdo ct r ine allo ws a r ev ie win g co urt to c ons i der un

pre serv ed err or when ( 1) a c lea ro ro bvio us er r o ro cc ur r ed an d t he ev ide nc e is so clo se ly bala nce d t ha t t he e rr o r a lo ne t hr ea t ene d t o t ip t he s ca les o f just ice ag ains t t he d efe ndant , regardless of

the serious ne ss

of the err or, or ( 2) a

cl ea r or obvio us e rr or oc cur re d and1-07-2317

14

that er ror i

s s o se rious th at i t af f ected th e f ai rnes s of th e def en da n t’s tr ial a n d chal le nged the i nt egr ity o f the judicial pr oc ess, re gar dless o f the clos enes s o f the evi dence.” People v. Piatkow ski , 225 Il l . 2d 551 , 565 (2 007). The first pr ong of t his te st app lies “wher e t he evidenc e in a case is so closely bal

anced t hat t he jury’s gui l ty verdict may

have resul

ted f rom the err or an d n ot the evi dence.” People v. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d 16 7, 178 (2 005). Wi

th regard to the second prong, “pl ai n error revie

w is equated with structural error. ” People v. Brazziel, No. 1-08-1 455, s l i p op. at 29 (N ovem

ber 22, 20 10). “An er ro r is t ypically

des ignat ed a s ‘st ru ct ur al’ and r eq uir ing au t o mat ic reversal o nly if it ne ce ss ar ily re nd er s a cr iminal t r ial fu nd ame nt ally u nfa ir o run r elia ble in de term i ni ng gui l t or i nn ocenc e. [ Ci

tation. ] Th

e Su pre me C ourt h

ashe l d a n e rror is structura

l onl y i n a ‘very li mi ted cl ass of cases.’ [Ci

tation.] St ructural errors inc lude a com pl ete deni al of cou ns el , deni al of se l f -re pre senta ti on at tr ia l, trial bef ore a biased judge , de nia l o f a p ub lic t ria l, r ac ial dis cr iminat io n in t he s ele ct io n o f a gr and jur y, and a defec t ive rea so nable do ubt instr uct ion. [Citation.]” People v. Averet t , 237 Ill . 2d1, 12-13 (2010 ). Under both pron gs“ the bu rde n of persuasion remai

ns wi th the defen

dant.” Herron , 215 Ill . 2dat 187. The co ur t will conside r e ach o f the co mplained o f sta t ement s in tu rn. In its openin

g stat emen

t, the St ate said that Bo ni ta McCo nnel

l’s dea th was“ a re sul

t of nonsense that occurs in our streets, nonsense that h as to s top, n on se

n se th at stops

wi th your v erdi ct, no nse nse t ha t will s t o p w he n yo u c o me b ack w i th a v erdi ct f or the of f en se of f i rst deg ree m urder.” Defend ant argues that this statement was desi gned to appeal

t o t he jury ’s prej udic es and cons tituted1-07-2317

15

plai n error. “The pur

pos e of an open i n g s tate men t i s to appri se

th e j ur y of wh at e ach pa rty ex pe cts th e ev i den ce

to prov e. [C i

tati on .] A n open i n g s tate men t ma y i ncl ude a di scus si on of the expe cted evidence an d reasonabl

e i nf erence s f rom the evi

dence. [Ci tation .] No st at eme nt may be mad e in open i n g w h i ch cou n se l doe s n ot i n ten d to pr ove or canno t pr ove . [ Cita t ion. ] *** Reve rsible er ro r o ccu rs o nly where t he pro secut or ’s o pe ning co mment s a r e a t t r ibu t ab le t o de li ber at e misco nduc t of t he pros ecutor and

resul t in s ubstanti al prejudi ce t o t he de fen da nt . [ Cit at io n. ] ” ( E mph as is i n ori gi na l .) People v. Kliner , 185 Il l . 2d 81, 1 27 (19 98). Al thoughar gu men t at ive co mment s a r e g en er ally imp r o pe rin o pe ning st at eme nt s, t he ev ide nc e in t his case was not closel

y b al anced suc

h that t he Stat e’s comm

ents threat ened to tip the balan ce agains t de f en da n t. Defend ant admit t ed t hat he killed Bo nita M cCo nnell, and for t he re aso ns stated above, we do not beli

eve that the evi

dence re gar ding hi s s el

f -de f ense cl ai m wa s c l ose . Nor

i s th e error compl ai ned o f st ruc t ur al. We find t ha t t he St at e’ s o pe ning r ema rks did not co nst itu t e plain er ro r a nd de fen da nt fo r feit ed his o bje ct io n t o t he m. The sam e can be said of the St ate’s co mm ents in i ts closing an

d rebutt al argum

ents, in whi ch it refer red to defen

dant’s sel f-def ense theory

as “ri dic ulous” an d “i nsul ting,” an d referen ced a ny second degree m

urder conviction as“a t ra vest y” of just ice. Defend ant ar gue s t hat in makingthese stat emen ts, the Stat e i

mproperl y ri dic ule d hi s theory of the c ase and s uggested that t he def

ense was ly in g and hidin

g the t rut h. Defendan

t also co mplainsof statemen ts made b y the Stat e i n i ts rebuttal urgin g that t he j ury do, and that Boni ta McConnel

l a nd he r fam il y de serve, j ustice.1-07-2317

16 “It i s wel l settl ed th at g re at l ati tu de is aff

or ded a pr os ecu t or dur ing clos ing argum en t [ci tation ], an d th at th e p rop riety

o f t he pr o se cu t io n’s r ema rks is g en er ally left t o t he dis cretion of the tria l c ourt ***. In closin

g argumen

t, t he prosecution m

ay basei ts arg umen t onthe ev i denc e p res en

ted or re as ona

bl e i nf ere nc esthe ref rom [ci tation ]; res pon d to thos e c om

men ts b y de f ense cou ns el wh i ch cl ea rl y i nv i te or provoke a response [ci

tation]; comm

ent on the credi

bi li ty of the def

ense wi tnesses [ci tation ]; de nou nc e the acti

vi ti esof defen dants and urge that

jus tice b e adm

in is tered [ci tation ]; highl ight inconsistencies i

n defendant’s ar gument [c itat ion] ; and c omment on defen dant’s ab sence

at tr ia l [citation].” People v. Morrison , 137 Ill . App. 3d 171, 184 (1 985). In t he inst ant cas e, we ha ve ca re fully re viewed t he clo sing and re but t al arg ument s, p aying particular at t en t io n t o t he r ema rks o f wh ich de fen da nt co mp lai ns, and co nclude that the S tat e’s com m en ts do not co nst itu t e plain error. T he rem arks were ei

ther withi n the b ounds of a proper cl osin g or rebutt al

argum en t or, if impr o pe r , ca nno t be sa id t o ha ve impa ct ed t he jur y’s de cis io n in lightof the evi dence of defen dant’s gui lt. See People v. Gray , 252 Ill . App. 3d 362, 368-69 (1993) ( pro se cut or ’s characterization of def endan t’s theory of the cas e as “s o ridicul ous that it isn ’t even wo rt hy of co mm ent ” not rever sibl

e er ro r) ; People v. B elvedere , 72 Ill . App. 3d 998, 1020 (1979) (pr osec ut or ’s ex

h orta ti on to j ur y n ot to “cop-out” by returni ng vol untary m ansl aughter verdict based on defen dant’s testim

ony n ot reversi ble error because i

t concerned

de fen da nt ’s cr ed ibilit y). T his is es pe cia lly t ru e in light o f the trial

court’s detai l ed j ury i nstructi ons, i

n w hi ch i t stated, inter al

ia , that “[n]ei ther op ening st at ement s no r c losing ar gument s ar e evide nce a nd an y sta tem en t or a rgum en ts1-07-2317

17

ma de by the atto rney

whi ch is not based on the evi

dence sh ould be dis regarded.” The State’s remarks did n ot co n sti

tute plain er ro r; t her efo re , d efenda nt fo r feit ed an y o bje ct io n t o t ho se r ema rks o n app ea l.

CONCLUSION For al l the f oregoi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm def endan t’s c onv i cti on f or fi rst deg ree m urder. Af fi rmed.