## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

People v . Ram irez , 2012 IL App (1st) 093504

Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPL E OF THE STATE OF I LL I NOI S, Plaintiff-Appe l lee, v. GUSTAVO RAMIREZ , Def endant- Appellant.

District & N o. First District, Third Division Docke t No. 1-09-3504

Filed August 15, 2012

Held (Note : Thi s syl lab us

con s t it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed b y the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) D e f endant’ s convictions for bribery wer e upheld over his contentions that the State failed to rebut his aff irmative defe nse of entra

pment and that he

was preve nted from prese nting evidenc e th at he never eng ag ed in such conduct in the past; howeve r, one conviction was vacated under the oneact, one -crime doctrine.

Dec ision Under
Review Appea l from the Circuit C o urt of Cook County
, No. 07-CR-4931; the Hon. Domenica

A. Stephenson, Judge, pr esiding

.

J udg ment Affir med in part a

nd vacated in part.Counsel on

Appea l Michae l J

. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg
, and Rebec ca I

. L evy , all of State Appellate D efe nder’ s Offic e, of Chica g o, for a ppellant.

Anita M. Alvare z, State’s Attorney
, of Chicag o (Allan J

. Spellberg
, J ohn E. Nowak, and Kar

y n Stratton, Assistant S tate’s Attorney s, of counsel), for the People

.

Panel J USTI CE MURPHY delivered the judgme nt of the court, with opinion.
J ustices Neville a

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

OP INION

¶ 1 Fo l l o wi n g a jury trial, defe ndant Gustavo Ramirez was convicted of four co u n t s o f bribery
, and the trial court sentenced him to 4 terms of 4 y ea rs ’ p robation and 40 hours of community service
, to be serve d concur rently

. On appea l, defe ndant contends that the State failed to rebut his aff

irmative defe nse of entra

pment beyond a rea sonable doubt. Def endant also contends that he was denied his right to prese nt a defe nse wher e the trial court preve nted him from prese nting e vidence that he had never previously eng ag ed in briber

y or a similar ty pe of conduct. Finally
, defe ndant contends that two of his convictions violate the one-a ct,

one-c rime doctrine. For the following rea sons, we vacate one of defe ndant’s convictions for bribery and af firm in all other re spects.

¶ 2 BA CKGROUND ¶ 3 The State charg ed defe ndant with multipl e counts of bribery and proce eded to trial on six of those counts based on alleg ations of conduct that took place on November 16, November 21, Dec ember 4, Dec ember 1 5
, Dec ember 18, and Dec ember 19, 2006. The count for November 16 alleg ed that defe ndant, with the intent to preve nt the demolition of his g ara g e by the City of Chicag o (City), promis ed t o b u y lunch for Ang elina Rece ndez, a public employee, which she was not authoriz ed b y law to acc ept. The count for November 21 alleg ed that defe ndant, with the intent to pre vent the demolition of his g ara g e by the City
, promised or tender ed money to Hec tor Are llano, a public employee, which he would not be authorized by law to acc ept. The count for Dec ember 4 alleg ed that defe ndant, with the intent
to preve nt the demolition of his g ara g e by th e C i t y an d to remove building code violation complaints from its rec ords, promised or tender ed money and a C i t y o f C h icag o water d ep a r tm e nt ( Wa

ter Depa rtment) plumbing key to Are llano, which he would not be autho riz e d by law to acc ept. The counts for Dec ember 15 and 18 alleg ed that defe ndant, with the intent
to influence the remova l of building code v i o l ation complaints from the City ’s rec ords, promised or tender ed money to Are llano, which he would not be authorized by law to acc ept. The final count alleg ed that on Dec ember 19 defe ndant, with the intent to influence the

-2-remova l of building code violation complaints from the City ’s rec ords, promised or tender ed

a Water Depa

rtment plumbing key to Are llano, which he would not be authorized by law to

acc ept. Def

endant was convicted of the four counts of bribery alleg ing criminal conduct on Dec ember

4, 15, 18, and 19, 2006. ¶ 4 Be fore the trial, the defe nse filed a motion to introduce evidenc e reg arding prior criminal conduct by four former employees of the City of Chicag o buildings depa rtment (B uildings Depa rtment). Eac h of these employees was either a building inspector or supervisor and had been indicted in the United States District Court for the Norther n Di s t rict of I llinois

. Def endant asser

ted that the evidenc e showi n g t h at he did not try to bribe these four employees at any time, despite their predisposit io n f o r a c c epting bribes, was rele vant beca use he was raising an en t rapment defe nse and this evidenc e would help prove that he was not predisposed to commit bribery

. Def endant also alleg ed that there was no evidenc e showing that he had eng ag ed in prior conduct involving bribery or any simil ar offe nse, had ever paid bribes to maintain his proper ties in Chicag o, or had ever solicited bribes as a public employee for the City

. The trial court denied the motion, finding t he evidenc e irrele vant wher e def endant did not have contac t with the Building s Depa rtment employees at issue. ¶ 5 At trial, Ang elina Rece ndez, an administrative assistant for the demolition burea u of the Building s Depa

rtment, testified that at about 9:30 a.m. on November 16, 2006, defe ndant called her office and aske d t o s p eak with a supervisor about a proper ty on which he had

rec eived a not i ce o f d emol ition. Rece ndez told defe ndant all the supervisors wer e in a meeting
, but that someone would call him back later. Def endant then told Rece ndez that he had some tacos and would bring them to her or g et her “any thing she wanted” if she would help him out by deleting his building violations from the compu t er sy stem, and Rece ndez responde d “no, I can’ t do that.” Def endant t h en asked Rece ndez if she had any clout, and when she replied that she did not, he told her that he had “g ood clout” and could help her out. Rece ndez testified that her phone conver sation with defe ndant lasted about 20 minutes, and she admitted to having previously testified at an administrative hearing but denied testifying
at that hearing that the phone call lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Rece ndez also testified that s he

was the only person in the demolition burea u answe ring phones that day –all the supervisors

wer e in an ex tended meeting for the day –and she es t i m at ed that the bureau receive s about 160 calls a da

y , eac h of which must be r efe rre d to a supervisor. ¶ 6 Rece ndez further testified that afte r speaking with defe ndant, she notified her supervisor and the City o f C h i ca go office of the inspector g ener al (I G) of the call. On November 21, 2006, Rece ndez went to the I G office and met with two supervisors and Hec tor Are llano. At 8:45 a.m. that morning
, Are llano instructed Rece ndez to call defe ndant and Are llano listened in on the call with his ear t o t h e phone as she di d so. In that call, R ece ndez told defe ndant that she had a friend who was an inspector and could help him with his violations and asked if she could g ive him defe ndant’s phone numbe r, and de fenda nt acquiesc ed. ¶ 7 Are llano testified that in N ovember 2006, he wa s an investig ator specia list with the I G and was assigned to work underc over as a Building s Depa rtment insp ector in order to investigate defe ndant afte r Rece ndez had repor ted defe ndant’s phone call to her supervisor. Ar ellano called defe ndant at 9:40 a.m. on November 21, 2006, afte r Rece ndez h ad ca l l ed him, posing as a building inspector. Are llano told defe ndant that he was from the Building s

-3-Depa rtment and that he would be able to help with defe ndant’s gar ag e problem at 8526 S. Burley

. After defe ndant told Are llano that t h e gar ag e only neede d minor repa irs, the two decide d to meet at the pr operty at 2 p.m. that day

. ¶ 8 When Are llano went to m eet de fenda nt, he wore a “Hawk,” which is a device that can

rec ord audio and video. Are llano only turned on the video function during this first meeting and the State played the video rec ording of that meeting for the jury while Are llano testified

as to the events as they transpire d. Are llano testified that when he first arrived at defe ndant’s
g ara g e, d ef

en d an t was acc ompanied by his handy man, who did not identify himself. The three men then walked to defe ndant’s g ara g e and Are llano told defe ndant that it was dilapidated and dang erous. The unidentified man asked Are llano what neede d to be done to avoid demolition, and Arellano responded that defendant would either need to get pe rmits
to demolish the g ara g e or repa ir it. Then Are llano asked to speak with defe ndant alone, and they moved about 15 fee t awa y from the unident i fi ed m an an d toward the front of the
proper ty

. ¶ 9 Are llano also testified that while they wer e alone, he told de fenda nt that Recende z had told him that defe ndant wanted someone to era se his building violations from the computer and that defe ndant “wa

nted to do some business.” Are llano testified that defe ndant did not look surprised and did not hesitate befor e agre eing to “do business.” When Are llano told defe ndant that he could delete the violations, defe ndant asked how much it would “run” him. Are llano asked defe ndant what he thought was a fair amount and noted that he would incur labor costs of $2,000 to $3,000 for the City to de molish the building and $250 in f ines that had acc rued. Def

endant sug g ested he pay Are llano $200, but told Are llano that he only had $60 at that time and would pay the rest at a later date. After paying Are llano, defe ndant told him that he was a fellow city employee an d t h at he worke d for the Water Depa rtment. Are llano told de fenda

nt that “ if he had any

other pe rmits or any

thing he neede d to g ive me

a ca ll.” The two then shook ha nds, and Are llano depar

ted. ¶ 10 Are llano furt h er t es t i fi ed that he called defe ndant on November 29, 2006, to inquire about the rema ining $140 of the $200 defe ndant had promised to pay him for removing the violations from the computer sy stem. Def endant told Are llano that he had left the $140 with his handy man in an envelope and that Are llano had not come to pick it up. Are llano said he had bee n out of town and de fenda nt agree d to have the mone y by the next Monday

. ¶ 11 O n N o v ember 30, 2006, Are llano obtained a court order for a consensua l overhe ar, which allowed him to rec ord all future conver sations with defe ndant, whether over the phone or in
person. Are llano and defe ndant met on Dec ember 4, 2006, at 3:45 p.m. on the southeast side of Chicag o, a block awa

y from Burley Avenue
, and the State played an audiovisual rec ording of their meeting for the jury

. The rec ording showed that defe ndant g ot into Are llano’s car and put $140 on the passeng er seat without any v erb al prompting from Are llano. Are llano brought the paper

work for the building at 8526 S. Burley to g ive to defe ndant, and defe ndant asked if he could g et a wholesale rate on the next deal beca use he had other issues with other buildings. Are llano agree d and g ave defe ndant a phone number to call. Are llano then asked defe ndant if he had any other g ara g e issues, and defe ndant t o l d h im about one with g ood walls and a bad roof. Are llano asked defe ndant if he could help out one of his friends whose
water had been cut off, and defe ndant told Are llano that he could g et a key his friend could

-4-use to turn the water back on. Def endant said that he would g ive Are llano the key if Are llano took car e of his violations. Arellano told def endant to ca ll him the next day and lef t. ¶ 12 On Dec ember 5, 2006, Are llano and defe ndant spoke on the phone. A rec ording of that

conver sation was played for the jury

. The rec ording showed that defe ndant g ave Are llano the addre sses of three of his proper ties on South Buf

falo Avenue that had g ara g e problems. The State next played rec ording s of phone conver sations betwee n defe ndant and Are llano, which showed that they spoke on the phone and left messag es for eac h other several times betwee n Dec ember 7 and 15, 2006, before agree ing to meet on Dec ember 15. The rec ording s also showed that Are llano ref ere nced defe ndant’s approa ch ing administrative hearing on Dec ember

22 and said that they

neede d to meet up soon to take c areof it. ¶ 13 On Dec ember 15, 2006, defe ndant and Are llano met for lunch to d i s cu s s defe ndant’s other violations and an upcoming hearing for one of them. The rec ording of that meeting was played for the jury and ref lected that defe ndant told Are llano that there wer e three proper ties with violations. When defe ndant asked how much it would cost to delete the violations from the computer, Are llano said they would cost $50 eac h and that he would make copies of the
paper work for those three proper ties. Def endant then told Are llano that he had a big violation that was up for a hearing soon and that he would be willing to pa y $150 for Are llano to g et rid of i t. Are llano told defe ndant that he would take care of it immediately since ther e was such a time conting ent. Defenda nt said that he could meet Arellano the following wee k to pay him half of the $300 he owed him for deleting the vio l at i o n s o ff t h e four proper ties. Are llano then asked if defe ndant had the water key
, and defe ndant responde d that he would pick it up the next day

. ¶ 14 Def

endant a nd Are llano met ag ain on Dec ember 18, 2006, and the recor ding f rom that meeting was played for the jury and showed that defe ndant g ave Are llano $140 of the $150 he owed him and stated that he still owed him “a ten.” Altho u gh Are llano brought up the
water key , defe ndant did not provide him with it. ¶ 15 Def

endant and Are llano spoke ag ai n at 1 2 : 5 3 p

. m

. o n December 19, 2006, and the

rec ording of that conver sation wa s p layed for the jury and showed that defe ndant told Are llano that he would g et that “thing ” for Are llano, and Are llano testified that he assumed defe ndant was talking about the water key

. Def endant also mentioned that he neede d a porch permit befor e his next court date on J anuar y 3, 2007, but Are llano d i d n o t d el i v er such a permit to defe ndant. Are llano attempted t o aga i n contac t defe ndant on J anuar y 9 and 19, 2007, but w as unable to rea ch him. Upon the conclusion of Are llano’s testimony
, the State rested its ca se. ¶ 16 The defe nse then called Kurt Be rg er as a witness. Be rg er, a former direc tor of the vaca nt building program for the Building s Depa rtment, testified that a person has 30 day s to repa ir his or her buildingafte r re ceiving a notice of

demolition bef

ore it will be torn down by the depar tment of streets and sanitation. Be rg er a lso testified that if a prope rty owner wants to

save his or her proper

ty from demolition, he or she must c ontact the Building s Depa rtment and speak with a supervisor or inspector within five day s of rec eiving the demolition notice. ¶ 17 The defe nse next called Carlos Chaparr o as a witness. Chaparr o testified that defe ndant had been his landlord fo r ei gh t y ears and that he also did some maintenanc e work for

-5-defe ndant. C hapar ro t estified that he was with defe ndant at his p ro p er t y at 8536 S. Burley

on November 21, 2006, when he met wi th Are llano. Chaparr o stayed about 10 or 15 fee t

awa y from defe ndant and Arel l an o wh i le they discussed the building. Chaparr o asked Are llano how long he and defe ndant had to comply with the demolition notice, and Are llano

seeme d to find the questi on funny and did not respond to it. Chaparr o also g ave defe ndant

some money that day
, and although he did not see defe ndant g ive that money to anyone else, defe ndant later t o l d him that he had g iven it to Are llano. In addition, when asked about defe ndant’s char acte r and reputation in the community , Chaparr o testified that he knew 20
to 30 people who knew defe ndant and that defe ndant had a reputation for truthfulness, honesty , and g ood char acte r amongthem. ¶ 18 Def

endant testified that he had worke d for the Water Depa rtment since October 1988 and that to supplement his income, he also bought proper ty in a neighborhood of Chicag o called The Bush, beg inning in 1996. By November 2006, defe ndant owned 18 homes in the neighborhood, many o f wh i ch h e h ad fix ed up over the year s. Due to the poor state these
pro p er t i es wer e in when he bought them, defe ndant often had contac t with the Building s Depa rtment, which issued violations for proper ties in disrepair

. Def

endant attended require d administrative hearings for the violations and would make the nece ssary rep ai rs with his handy man, Chapar

ro. I n November

2006, defe ndant rec eived a demolition noti ce f rom the Building s Depa

rtment for his g ara g e located at 8526 S. Burley

. ¶ 19 Def

endant called th e Bu i l d i n gs Depa rtment at 9:13 a.m. on November 16, 2006, and spoke with Rece ndez. Defe ndant explained to Rece ndez that he had r ece ived a de moliti on notice and a sked to speak with a supervisor. Def endant then asked Recende z for the name of an inspector who could look at his proper ty and also said “right now I have tacos, I ’ll be gl ad to bring you a taco over if you could revie w the pictures of the proper ty .” Rece n d ez responde d that she could not do that, and de fenda nt said “we ll, you know what, c an I have
your supervisor, may

be your clout can g ive me a call and may be we could settle this; I ’m a city worke r and I just want to make compliance to my g arag e.” The ca l l t h en ended, and defe ndant’s phone rec ords indicated that the call lasted fo r l ess than a minute. Def endant testified that he did not ask Rec endez to delete his violations from the c omputer sy stem. ¶ 20 On November 21, 2006, defe ndant rec eived a call from Are ll a n o , who introduced himself

as a buildings i n s p ec t o r, and the two agree d to meet later that day at 8526 S. Burley to discuss defe ndant’s g ara g e problem. At the prope rty , defe ndant spoke with Are llano while

awa y from Chaparr o and told Are llano that he could g et the g ara g e into compliance to save it from demolition. Are llano responde d “I ’m here to take car e of business; I can make it easy , I can make it hard for you,” and sai d th at he could add more violations, that it would cost defe ndant, and that he neede d some money

. Are llano also asked for 10% of the $2,000 it would cost for demolition. As Are llano walked awa y , defe ndant obtained $60 from Chaparr o and put it in his pocket, then later handed that m o n ey t o Are llano as he was leaving the
proper ty

. Def endant testified that he only g ave mone y

to Arellano be cause he wa s worrie d that Are llano would add more violations and fines to the prope rty if he did not and that he did not have the intention of bribingAre llano to remove violations. ¶ 21 Def

endant and Are llano arrang ed to next meet on Dec ember 4, 2006, on the 8500 block of South B urley

. During this mee ting, defe ndant g ot into Arellano’s c ar a nd Are llano g ave

-6-h i m p ap erw ork for the building violations and told defe ndant that he could era se th e

violations from the computer. Def endant then told Are llano that he had other proper ties that had problems and asked Are llano if he could take car e of them at a wholesale rate

. Def endant subsequently g ave Are llano the $140 he still owed him for the proper ty at 8526 S. Burley and took down Are llano’s phone number

. ¶ 22 On De cember 5, 2006, defe ndant spoke with Are llano and provi d ed h i m wi t h t h e addre sses of th

r e e other buildings that had problems on South Buf falo Avenue

. On Dec ember 15, 2006, defe ndant met with Are llano and offe red to pay $300 for Are llano to g et rid of the violations o n four of his proper ties, with $150 being for one big proper ty violation. Def endant next met with Are llano on Dec ember 18, 2006. Def endant handed Are llano $140 when he arrived and they shook hands. Def endant called Are llano around noon on Dec ember 19, 2006, and t o l d him that he neede d a permit for a small porch, that he had rec eived a violation on that proper

ty , and that he would g et that “th i n g” for Arellano, refe rring to the
water key

. Def endant further testified that he never rece ived the permit for the porch fr om Are llano, that he never provided Are llan o wi t h the water key
, and that he had no more contac t with Arellano followingDec ember 19, 2006. ¶ 23 Ba sed on the evidenc e above, the jury found defe ndant not guilty of the bribery charg es alleg ing criminal conduct on November 16 and 21, 2006, and found him guilty of the bribery charg es alleg ing criminal conduct on Dec ember 4, 15, 18, and 19, 200 6

. The trial court denied defe ndant’s motion for a new trial and sentenc ed him to four terms of four year s’ probation and 40 hour s of community service , to be serve d concur rently

.

¶ 24 ANALYSI S ¶ 25 I . Sufficienc y of the Evidenc e ¶ 26 Def

endant contends that the State’s evidenc e was insuffi ci en t t o re b u t , b ey o n da

rea sonable doubt, his aff

irmative def

ense of entra

pment wher e the crime originated with a State ag ent and the S tate failed to demonstrate tha t he was pr edisposed to commit bribery

. The S tate responds that defe n d an t was not entra pped because he ini tiated contact with the
g overnme nt, was the fir st to mention a bribe, immediately offe red to bribe the investig ator without hesitation, was the first to discuss money , and later asked for a “wholesa le rate ” for deletingviolations on his other pr operties. ¶ 27 In the instance that a defe ndant contests the sufficie ncy of the eviden ce t o s u stain a conviction, the st andar d of review is whether
, afte r vi ewing the evidence i n t h e li ght most favor able to the State, any rational trier of fac t could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea sonable doubt. People v. Hall
, 194 I ll. 2d 305, 329 (2000). As a result, this
court will only

reve rse a conviction wher e the e vidence is so unreasona ble, improbable, or unsatisfac tory as to justify a rea sonable doubt of the def endant’ s guilt. People v . Ross , 229 I ll. 2d 255, 272 (2008). ¶ 28 In the prese nt case , defe ndant was convicted of four counts of bribery

. Def endant admits
to the conduct for which he was convicted, but contends that he was induced to commit bribery by Are llano and asser ts the aff irmative defe nse of entra

pment. Under the defe nse of
entra pment, a per son is not guilty of an of fense if:

-7-“[H]i s or her conduct is incited or induc ed by a public off

icer or employee, or ag ent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidenc e for the prosec ution of that person. Howeve r, this Section is inapplicable if the person was pre- disposed to commit the offe nse and the public office r or employee, or ag ent of either, mere ly aff ords to that person the opportunity

or fa cility

for c ommitt ing a

n offe nse.” 720 IL CS 5/ 7-12 (West 2006).
Henc e, in order to establish such a defe n s e, d ef endant must prese nt evidenc e (1) that the State induced or incited him to commit the crimes and (2) that he lacke d the predisposition
to commit the crimes. People v. Placek
, 184 I ll. 2d 370, 380-81 (1998). I f defe ndant prese nts

some degree of evidenc e to support his defe nse of entra pment, the burden then shifts to the State to rebut that def

ense be yond a re asonable doubt. Id. at 381. ¶ 29 In this case, defe ndant prese nted evidenc e showing that Are llano initiated contact with him on November 21, 2006, and that Are llano first broac hed the subject of bribery when he asked defe ndant if he wanted to “do business” when they met at defe ndant’s g ara g e at 8526 S. Burley

. Def

endant further testified that he only agree d to the initial bribe on November 21, 2006, as well as subsequent bribes, bec au s e Ar el l ano told him “I can make it easy ; I can make it ha

rd,” and he thought Are llano would impose more fines on his building s if he did
not p ay Are llano to remove the building violations. Since defe ndant has prese nted some degree of evide nce to suppor t his entra pment defe nse, the burden thus shifts to the State to rebut that de fense beyond a re asonable doubt.

¶ 30 A. Induceme nt to Com mit Briber y ¶ 31 The State asser ts that the evidenc e shows that defe ndant was not improperly induced to commit the crime of bribery beca use Are llano did not pressure him to commit the crime and he did not hesitate to bribe Are llano when Are llano asked him if he wanted to “do business.” In order for a defe ndant to succe s s fu l ly asser t the defe nse of entra

pment, he must demonstrate that he was “incited or induced” to commit the crime of bribery and that t h e criminal purpose orig inated with a “public office r or employee, or ag ent of either.” 720 I L CS 5/7-12 (West 2006). Induceme nt is not established wher e the g overnme nt mere ly aff ords the defe ndant an opportunity to commit the crime. People v. Bonner
, 385 I ll. App. 3d 141, 145 (2008). In other words, entra pment d o es n o t exis t as a matter of law simply beca use a g overnme nt ag ent initiates a re lationship leadingto the offe nse. Id. ¶ 32 Are llano testified that when he and defe ndant met for the first time at defe ndant’s g ara g e at 8526 S. Burley on November 21, 2006, he asked defe ndant if they could speak in private. At t h at p o int, Are llano told defe ndant that Rece ndez had told him that defe ndant was interested in doing business and defe ndant did not look surprised. Then, when Are llano

as k ed d efe ndant if he “wa nted to do some business,” defe ndant did not hesitate befor e agree ing to “do business” and asking Are llano “[w]hat is it g oing to run me? ” Are llano and defe ndant then discussed what would constitute a fair price
, and defe ndant sug g ested that he
pay Are llano $200 and arrang ed to pay him $60 that day and the remaining$140 at a later date. Are llano’s testimony thus shows that afte r he offe red defe ndant the opportunity to “do business,” defe ndant jumped on that opportunity without hesitation

. T h e refor e, when viewed in t h e l i ght most favor able to the State, the evidenc e shows that Are llano mere ly aff orded

-8-defe ndant an opportunity to commit the offe nse and did not improp erly induce him into

committing briber

y

. ¶ 33 Def

endant asser

ts that t h e ev i d en ce shows that he was not planning to bribe Ar ellano when he met with him on November 21, 2006, beca use if he had bee n p lanning to bribe Are llano, he would have met in private, without Chaparr o, and would have brought enough

m o n ey to bribe Arellano so he would not have to borrow $60 from C hapar ro. However, i t is the responsibility of the trier of fac t to resolv e conflicts in the testimony
, weigh the evidenc e, and draw rea sonable infere nces from the evidenc e. People v. W hite
, 241 I ll. App. 3d 291, 296 (1993). Her e, the jury observe d the witnesses’ testimony
, viewed the evidenc e, and dete rmined that defe ndant was not imprope rly induced to c ommit briber y , and we will
not substitut e our judgme nt for that of the trier of fac t on issues involving the weight of the evidenc e. ¶ 34 Additionally
, this case is distinguishable from People v. Po u l o s , 1 9 6 I ll. App. 3d 653 (1990), cited by defe ndant. In Poulos
, this co u rt deter mined that a State informant had induced the defe ndant t o deliver a controlled subst ance beca use, i n additi o n t o i n i tiating a

conver sation about selling d r u g s , th e in f

o r ma nt repe atedly asked the defe ndant to sell coca ine
to his friend and the defe ndant repe atedly ref used. Id

. at 6 5 6 -5 9

. Although the defe ndant
eventua lly agree d to sell the coca ine, this court found that he had been induced beca use “the State more than me rely

aff orded de fenda

nt an opportunity

for the c riminal act.” Id. at 658. In this case , defe ndant never ref used Are llano’s offe r and acquie sced the first time Are llano
sug g ested the pay

ment of a bribe in exchange fo r g etting rid of the building violations. There fore
, this case is distinguishable from Poulos beca use reg ardle ss of whether Are llano initiated contac t with defe ndant and was the first to mention “doing business,” defe ndant did
not hesitate or question Are llano’s sug g estion and took it one step further by asking Are llano how much it would cost and sug g estinga pric e. ¶ 35 We there fore deter mine that, when viewed in the l igh t m o s t favorable to the S tate, the evidenc e demonstrates that Are llano mere ly aff orded defe ndant the opportunity to commit the crime of briber

y and that def

endant wa s not improperly induced to commit that crime.

¶ 36 B. Pre dispositi on to Comm it Briber y ¶ 37 The S tate asse rts that sufficie nt evidencewas pre sented at trial to prove that defe ndant

wa s p re d i s p osed to commit bribery based on his unsolicited call to Rece ndez and hi s eag erne ss to bribe Are llano on m u l t i p l e occa sions. Def endant contends that the evidenc e shows that he was not predisposed to commit bribery befor e Are llano ap proac hed him. Def endant also asser

ts that Rece ndez’s testimony rega rding his initial phone conver sation with her cannot help establish his predisposition to commit bribery bec au s e the jury dismiss ed that testimony when it f ound him not guilty on the count of bribe ry alleg ing that he promised to buy

her lunc h with the intent to prevent the de moliti on of his g ara g e. ¶ 38 I n order to prove predisposition, the evidenc e must establish that the defe nd an t wa s “re ady and wi l l i n g to commit the crime without persua sion and befor e his or her initial
exposure to g overnme n t ag ents.” People v. Criss
, 307 I ll. App. 3d 888, 897 (1999). In addition, “[t] he determination of predisposit i on to commit crime[s] rests upon the facts of

-9-the case ” ( Poulos
, 196 I ll. App. 3d at 661), and the issue is there fore one for the trier of fac t ( People v. Dunn
, 251 I ll. App. 3d 772, 778 (1993))

. There are sever al fac tors to consider in deter mining whether a defe ndant was predisposed to commit a crime, including (1) the char acte r of the defe ndant; (2) whether the g overnme nt initiated the alleg ed criminal activity ; (3) whether the defe ndant had a history of criminal activity for profit; (4) whether the defe ndant showed hesitation in committing the crime, which was only overc ome by repe ated
persua sion; (5) the ty

pe of inducement or persua sion applied by the g overnme nt, or the way in which it was applied; and (6) the defe ndant’s prior criminal rec ord. People v. Kulwi n , 229 I ll. App. 3d 36, 39 (1992). ¶ 39 The evidence in this case , when viewed in the light most favor able to the S tate, shows that defe ndant showed no hesitation befor e committing the crime of bribery wher e Are llano testified that defe ndant did not hesitate befor e agree ing to his offe r to “do business” and then inquired as to the cost. The State’s evidenc e also shows that Are llano did not improperly induce defe ndant to commit bribery wher e he was acting on Rece ndez’s complaint when he
contac ted defe ndant and mere ly aff orded him the opportunity to commit the crime of bribery

. Although a number of the other fac tors to consider favor defe ndant, the issue of whether he

was predisposed to commit bribery is a question of fac t to be resolved by the jury

. Dunn
, 251 I ll. App. 3d at 778. In this case , the jury ’s finding that defe ndant was predisposed to commit bribery is s u

p p o rted by the evidenc e showing that he showed no hesitation befor e committing the crime and was not subjected to i mproper inducement or repe ated persua sion, and we there fore will not subst itute our judg ment for that of the jury on this matter. ¶ 40 We also note that this court’s holdings in People v. Boalbey
, 143 I ll. App. 3d 362 (1986), and Peopl e v. P oulos
, 196 I ll. App. 3d 653 (1990), cited by defe ndant, are di stinguishable beca us e u n l i k e i n those case s, wher e the defe ndants committed the rele vant crimes afte r ref using repe ated offe rs by the g overnme nt ag ents, here defe ndant immediately acc epted Are llano’s initial offe r and showed no hesitation befor e committing the crime. We there fore deter mine that the evidenc e, when viewed in the light most favor able to the State, shows that defe ndant was predisposed to commit the cr i me of bribery and conclude that the State
p r e s ented sufficie nt evidenc e to rebut defe ndant’s defe nse of entra pme nt b e y

o n d a r e a s o n a

b le doubt.

¶ 41 I I . Right to Present a Def ense ¶ 42 Def

endant next contends that the trial court denied hi m h i s ri gh t to prese nt a def ense when it preve nted him from prese nting evidenc e that he had never previously eng ag ed in bribery or a simil ar ty

pe of conduct wher e it denied his motion to introduce evidenc e and sustained an objection by the Stat e t o h i s testimony reg arding whether he had previously bribed a b u i l d i n g i nspector. The State responds that defe ndant was not preve nted from
prese nting a defe nse wher e he testified on cross-e x amination that he had many interac tions

over sever al year s with building inspectors and had never g iven them money

. The State also

as s erts that the trial court properly sustained the prosec utor’s objection to defe nd an t ’s testimony reg arding whether he had previously bribed a building inspector. Additionally
, the State maintains that any error on the part of the trial court was harmless beyond a rea sonable

-10-doubt.

¶ 43 A criminal defe ndant is constitutionally guara nteed a meaning ful opportunity to pr esent

a complete defe nse. U.S. Const., amends. VI
, XIV; I ll. C o n s t. 1970, art. I
, § 8; Holmes v. South Carolina
, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006). A defe ndant who raises the aff irmative defe nse of entra pment has a right to introduce evidenc e of a lack of prior criminal behavior such as that with which he is charg ed beca use it is rele vant to the trier of fac t’s deter mination of his predisposition. People v. Dobrino
, 227 I ll. App. 3d 920, 930 (1992). Evidentiary ruling s are within the s ound discretion o f the trial court and will not be reverse d absent a finding that the court has abused its discretion, which may only be found wher e its ruling is arbitra ry or

unrea sonable or wher e no rea sonable person would take the same view. People v. Caffey
, 205 I ll. 2d 52, 89 (2001). To establish that a trial court’s err or is harmless, “the State must prove beyond a rea sonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the err or.” People v. Nitz , 219 I ll. 2d 400, 410 (2006). ¶ 44 The rec ord shows that defe ndant testified on cross-e x amination that he had never g iven
money to a building inspector in connec tion with previous violations involving his proper ty

. In addition, Chaparro testified that defe ndant had a re putation in the community for
trut h fu l n es s, honesty
, and g ood char acte r. There fore
, defe ndant was not preve nted from
prese nting evidenc e showing that he had n ever previously eng ag ed in bribery or a simil ar ty pe of conduct wher e he testified to that fac t and Chaparr o testified as to his reputation for honesty and truthfulness. In addition, to the extent the trial court may have committed err or in denying de fenda

nt’s pretria l motion or sustaining the State’ s objection to his testim ony , such error would be harmless beyond a rea sonable doubt wher e he prese nted uncontra dicted evidenc e at trial that he had not previously eng ag ed in bribery or simil ar conduct and the jury nonetheless f

ound him guilty

of briber y based on the strength of the State’s e vidence

.

¶ 45 I I I . One- Act, One -Crime ¶ 46 Def

endant further contends that his convictions for the counts o f b rib e r y a ll e g ing c riminal conduct on Dec ember 15 and 18, 2006, violate the one-a ct, one-c rime doctrine, and the State responds that his convictions are proper beca use those two counts are based on separ ate acts. A person commits the crime of bribery when, “[w]i th the intent to influence the perf ormanc e of any act related to the employ m en t o r fu n cti on” of a public employee, he “promises or tender s” to that employee proper ty or persona l advanta g e which the employee would not be authorized by law to acc ept. 720 I L C S 5 / 3 3-1(b) (West 2006). Thus, the act of bribery is complete as of the promise wher e it is g iven with the requisite intent. People v. W allace
, 57 I ll. 2 d 2 8 5
, 290 (1974). Under the one-a ct, one-c rime doctrine, a court shall not impose multipl e convictions wher e multipl e offe nses are car ved from the same phy sical act. People v. Rodriguez , 169 I ll. 2d 183, 186 (1996); People v . King , 66 I ll. 2d 551, 566 (1977). ¶ 47 Def

endant asser

ts that his tender of $140 to Are llano on Dec ember 18, 2006, was mere ly the rea liz ation of his earlier promise to provide Are llano with half of the $300 he was paying Are llano to delete building violations o n fo u r of his proper ties, and did not constitute a separ ate crime. The State respond s t h at the counts for Dece mber 15 and 18, 2006, alleg ed
separ ate acts an d could support separ ate convictions beca use the Dec ember 15 count

-11-perta ined to defe ndant’s offe r to pay Are llano $150 to delete three minor violations and the

Dec ember 18 count perta ined to the separ ate promise to pay Are llano $150 to eliminate one “big ” violation. ¶ 48 The e vidence prese nted at trial shows that on Dec ember 15, 2006, defe ndant promised to pa y Are llano a total of $300 to de lete four violations from the City ’s computer wher e he promised to pay $150 for the deletion of one “big ” violation and $50 eac h for three smaller violations. The counts for Dec ember 15 and 18 both alleg e that defe ndant promised or tender ed Are llano money on those dates with the intent to influence him to remove building code violations’ complaints from the City ’s rec ords. Nowher e in these charg es does the State attempt to apportion these offe nses among the various promises. Thus, the Dec ember 15 charg e encompa sses defe ndant’s promise to pay Are llano $300 to delete all four violations, and not just the three minor violations as the S tate now asser ts. There fore
, beca

use the act of bribery was complete when defe ndant promised to pay Are llano $300 ( W allace
, 57 I ll. 2d
at 290), he is now being convicted of bribery for both that promise and the subsequent tender of a p o rt i o n of that sum on Dec ember 18, and his conviction for the pay ment of $140 on Dec ember 18 there fore violates the one-a ct, one-c rime doctrine. Although defe ndant could have been charg ed with multipl e crimes for his multipl e promises made on Dec ember 15, the State only charg ed him with one count of bribery for his actions that day and, as such, he may only be convic ted of one crime. People v . Crespo , 203 I ll. 2d 335, 345 (2001). ¶ 49 Having deter

mined that one of defe ndant’s convictions for bribery must be vacated, we must also consider whether to rema nd the matter to the t ri al co urt for rese ntencing

. Def endant asser

ts that rese n t en cing is nece ssary beca use the trial court imposed a single
sentenc e for all four bribery counts and it cannot be deter mined from the rec ord whether the exis tence o f th e invalid fourth conviction played a role in the court’s sentenc ing deter mination. Howeve r, the rec ord shows that during sentenc ing, the trial court stated “[l] et

me back up just a minute. I want to make this clea r. The sentenc es on Counts 10, 12, 13, and 14, it’s the same sentenc e for eac h one of those counts but eac h o n e o f t h o s e wi ll run

concur rent with eac h other, okay .” It is there fore clea r from the rec ord that defe ndant was sentenc ed separ atel y o n each of the four counts and that the one improper conviction for bribery did not affe ct the duration or severity of his sentenc e.

¶ 50 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 51 For the fore g oing rea sons, we vacate defe ndant’s conviction for count 13, which alleg ed that he committed the crime of briber y on Dec ember

18, 2006, and affirm the judgment of the trial cour

t in all other respe cts.

¶ 52 Affir

med in part a

nd vacated in part.

-12-