2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

No. 2-18-0110 

Order filed May 18, 2021

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court

OF ILLINOIS, ) of Kane County. 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 07-CF-1842 

) 

QUENTIN MOORE ) Honorable 

) Linda Abrahamson

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Zenoff and Brennan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Accomplice testimony presented at defendant’s discharge hearing was sufficient to 

sustain a finding of “not not guilty” of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

¶ 2 Defendant Quentin Moore appeals the trial court's determination that he is “not not guilty” 

of first-degree murder after conducting a discharge hearing pursuant to section 104-25 of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/104-25 (West 2018)). On appeal, defendant 

argues that the accomplice testimony presented by the State was insufficient to support such a 

finding. We affirm. 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 2 - 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 On June 29, 2007, defendant was charged with six counts of first-degree murder (720 ILCS 

5/9-1 (West 2004)) as a result of the September 4, 2005, killing of George Caro. At that time, 

defendant was already serving a sentence for attempted murder in an unrelated case, 05-CF-2900. 

On March 11, 2016, after considering relevant medical reports, a report issued from the 

Department of Corrections, and its own observations of defendant’s behavior, the trial court 

entered an order finding defendant unfit to stand trial pursuant to sections 104-16 and 104-17 of 

the Code (725 ILCS 5/104-16, 104-17 (West 2016)) and remanded him to the Department of 

Human Services. In addition to the instant matter, this order pertained to several other cases in 

which defendant was named as a defendant, including 08-CF-1462 (aggravated battery and mob 

action) and 10-CF-1477 (aggravated battery).

1 On June 8, 2017, the trial court entered an order 

finding that defendant remained unfit for trial. At that time, the State requested a discharge hearing.

¶ 5 On October 2, 2017, defendant’s discharge hearing commenced. Officer Todd Fancsali 

testified that on September 4, 2005, he was working for the Aurora Police Department when he 

received a radio dispatch regarding “a suspicious subject lying in a yard” abutting 660 North 

Lincoln Avenue. He arrived at the yard at approximately 4:17 a.m., where he found a shirtless 

male “laying [sic] on the ground on his back, wearing shorts, [and] white socks.” Officer Chad 

Kubis arrived at the scene shortly after Fancsali and checked the body for vital signs while Fancsali 

1 While not listed on the described order, the transcript from defendant’s fitness hearing 

also invokes 07-CF-1826 (first degree murder). The transcript also identifies 07-CF-1840, but the 

record indicates that this case was nolle prossed and closed as of November 2008.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 3 - 

called for paramedics. Fancsali concluded that the male was deceased and called for a sergeant to 

attend the scene. 

¶ 6 Officer Chad Kubis testified that, after receiving a call regarding a “suspicious person,” he 

arrived at the crime scene shortly after Officer Fancsali. There, he noticed “a person laying [sic] 

on the ground.” Kubis was unable to detect any vital signs from the body and noted that the body 

was not wearing a shirt or shoes. He recognized the deceased person as George Caro, whom he 

had become acquainted with during his time in Aurora’s gang unit.

¶ 7 Timothy Echols testified that he was currently serving a 45-year sentence within the Illinois 

Department of Corrections after having been convicted of murder. The sentence was part of a plea 

agreement in which Echols agreed to “testify truthfully about the events and people involved in 

the killing of George Caro.” In exchange for testifying, Echols was not charged in the murder of 

Caro. Furthermore, while there was a “separate murder” that was “pending in adult court,” the 

“State’s Attorney [would] dismiss the remaining murder” once Echols’s “testimony [was] 

complete.”2

¶ 8 Echols testified that while he was no longer affiliated with the Latin Kings, he had 

previously been a member, having first joined the gang in 2003. When asked how he came to be a 

member of the gang, he answered, “Just hanging around my cousins, family.” Echols described 

the hierarchy of the gang, testifying that when an individual is a “full-fledged member of the gang,” 

it means “[t]hey got their crown.” To first get “their crown,” a prospective member must “have 

put in work” by becoming involved with “crimes, murder, attempt[ed] murder.” Affiliates with the 

2 The State did not delve into the specifics of this “separate murder” while questioning 

Echols, but it seems to be unrelated to the killing of George Caro.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 4 - 

gang who had not yet received their crowns were referred to as “shorties.” Echols received his 

crown after committing a murder.

¶ 9 Echols testified that the leader of the Latin Kings was referred to as an “Inca,” and that 

defendant was the Inca of the Aurora Latin Kings in September 2005. According to Echols, Incas 

had the authority to “give orders” to subordinate members of the gang, just as full-fledged members 

of the gang had authority to give orders to “shorties.”

¶ 10 After affirming that he had reviewed “a copy of a transcript of [his] prior testimony,”3

Echols testified about the events leading up to Caro’s killing. On September 3, 2005, when Echols 

was 14 years old, Caro visited him at his mother’s house. The two “hung out on [Echols’s] porch, 

drinking, [and] doing some [cocaine].” After about an hour, they left to go to Anna Ortiz’s house 

“[t]o hang out, [and] party a little bit.” While there, Echols and Caro “[h]ung out, [and] did some 

more [cocaine].” Several partygoers trickled in and out of Ortiz’s house before Ruben Hernandez, 

Max Aguilar, defendant, Juan Vargas, and Roman Lucio arrived. Echols recognized all five of 

these men as Latin Kings.

¶ 11 After arriving, Juan Vargas—who Echols only knew as “Shorty”4

—confronted Echols 

about being high on cocaine, as it was “against the rules of the Latin Kings to be high on cocaine.” 

Breaking this rule would subject one to a “violation,” a beating inflicted by a full-fledged Latin 

3 The State did not mention any specifics regarding this “prior testimony” while 

questioning Echols, but based on its subject matter, it presumably came from Juan Vargas’s 2012 

trial for the killing of Caro.

4 While the term “shorty” could refer to a Latin King affiliate who did not receive his 

crown, it was also Vargas’s nickname and did not reflect his status in the gang.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 5 - 

King against a victim who must “[s]tand there and take it.” Fearing reprisal, Echols denied being 

on cocaine and greeted the remaining four gang members with a specific gang handshake, which 

Latin Kings refer to as “[s]haking up.” In order to complete this handshake, two Latin Kings would 

interlock their hands in a specific way, so as to form a crown. According to the Latin King’s rules, 

only those who had their “crowns” could initiate a “shake up” with other members who had their 

“crowns.” Otherwise, the member initiating a “shake up” with a full-fledged member would be 

subject to a “violation.”

¶ 12 After Echols “shook up” with the remaining Latin Kings, Caro also “shook up” with them. 

Afterwards, someone accused Caro of “shaking up” with the Latin Kings while not having his 

crown, prompting Hernandez and defendant to have a discussion on the matter. Afterwards, the 

two told Caro that “he had a violation,” and Caro “just accepted it.” While some women remained 

drinking inside of Ortiz’s home, the men exited a side door, followed by Echols. Aguilar told 

Echols that the two had to “post up,” meaning they had to “be on security” as lookouts. Echols 

walked towards the sidewalk in front of Ortiz’s home. It was already late, “sometime after 

midnight,” and Echols did not see any witnesses in the area. While he remained posted on the 

sidewalk, Echols saw the rest of the group head towards the neighboring house’s backyard. Echols 

then saw the men “[come] up from the side of *** one of the neighbor’s houses, and [stop] on the 

sidewalk.” They stopped on the sidewalk “a house or two down the street.”

¶ 13 After the group reappeared down the street, Echols saw Hernandez, defendant, Vargas, and 

Lucio all begin to punch Caro at once. The men hit Caro “all over” his body and head with closed 

fists. Eventually, Caro ended up falling to the ground because “[s]omebody pulled him down.” 

The Latin Kings then “started stomping on him.” Hernandez, defendant, Vargas, and Lucio all 

“participated in the punches and the kicks.” Caro did not attempt to defend himself or run. Echols 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 6 - 

testified that neither he nor Aguilar personally participated in the beating, which lasted “[o]ver two 

minutes,” but “less than ten minutes.” At some point, Vargas began to use “a bat or a stick” to hit 

Caro, “like one of those mini bats” one might get as a souvenir during a baseball game. However, 

Echols wasn’t positive whether the weapon was a bat or “some other stick-like object.” Echols 

could hear the men as they beat Caro; the beating sounded like “smashing a pumpkin.” At some 

point during the beating, Anna Ortiz left her house to ask Echols about what was going on outside. 

Echols told her that the Latin Kings were “givin’ a violation” before advising her to go back inside.

¶ 14 After beating Caro, Hernandez, defendant, Vargas, and Lucio picked Caro up, and carried 

him “[t]o the side of a house,” towards a side yard. The men then reappeared without Caro. Aguilar 

joined Hernandez, defendant, Vargas, and Lucio as they entered Lucio’s van and left the scene. 

Echols returned inside Ortiz’s home and asked one of the partygoers for a ride home. Once home, 

Echols used “some more drugs, [specifically] cocaine.”

¶ 15 At some point “later on the day” of September 4, 2005, a member of the Aurora Police 

Department visited Echols at his home. Echols lied to the police officer, telling her that he “didn’t 

know anything about what happened to [Caro]” and that “[Caro] never got dropped off” at Echols’s 

home. When the State asked whether Echols gave “the police officer any other names,” Caro 

replied that he had mentioned the name “Juan,” because “it sounded like a decent name to give 

him.” Echols testified that he did not mean to implicate Juan Vargas, because at the time he had 

only known him as “Shorty.”

¶ 16 Later in the day, Echols visited defendant at his home to inform him that the police had 

spoken with him earlier. When speaking with defendant, Echols “told him that they found [Caro’s] 

body, [and] that he was dead.” Defendant asked Echols whether he had said anything to police. 

Because it was a “violation of the rules of the Latin Kings” for any member to speak with police, 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 7 - 

Echols lied and told defendant that he hadn’t said anything.5 Afterwards, defendant told Echols 

that after leaving Ortiz’s house the night before, the Latin Kings had “got[ten] rid of their shoes, 

burned their shoes.” Echols left defendant’s home.

¶ 17 On cross-examination, defendant questioned Echols about the specific ways in which a 

prospective member of the Latin Kings could receive their “crown.” Defendant asked, “[S]o you 

don’t have to kill somebody in order to get a crown. You can just do a crime of violence, beat ‘em 

up or something like that?” Echols answered, “Yes.” Defendant then pointed out that in May 2012, 

when Echols testified in Juan Vargas’s trial for Caro’s murder, Echols was asked “to explain to 

the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a crown is[.]” At that time, Echols responded, “To kill 

somebody.” Echols acknowledged his prior response but specified that his answer may not have 

been “put the right way.” He further explained that killing someone is only “one of the ways of 

getting your crown.”

¶ 18 Defendant then sought to impeach Echols’s testimony concerning his introduction to the 

Latin Kings. Defendant asked Echols whether he had previously indicated that he first met the 

Latin Kings “[t]hrough friends, through friends at school.” Echols answered, “Yes, that’s another 

thing, another way.” Defendant pointed out that this prior testimony conflicted with Echols’s more 

recent statements, in which he stated that he had “met the Latin Kings through family members.” 

Echols acknowledged the inconsistency. 

¶ 19 Defendant asked Echols, “It’s your testimony today, by the way, that—that you saw, I think 

you said it was [Vargas] use a stick or a bat to strike the victim, George Caro, in this case, correct?” 

5 Echols later testified that he had in fact received a beating for having spoken with the 

police on September 4, 2005. 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 8 - 

After Echols agreed, defendant asked whether Echols recalled discussing Caro’s murder with a 

detective at the Du Page County Youth Home in January 2006. Echols indicated that he 

remembered giving the detective a statement at that time. Defendant then asked, “And in the entire 

statement, you never once mentioned anything about a stick or a bat, correct?” Echols could not 

recall, so defendant showed him a copy of his former statement to refresh his memory. Upon seeing 

the statement, Echols agreed that there was “[n]othing about a bat or stick in [it].” Reading from 

the transcript of Vargas’s earlier murder trial, defendant then asked Echols about several questions 

that were reportedly asked of him at that time. Defendant read the following from the Vargas trial 

transcript: 

“[Question]: [‘]Did you see whether or not a weapon was used to hit George Caro?’

Answer: ‘No.’

Next question: ‘Did you see if a weapon was present?’

Answer: ‘No.’

[Next question]: ‘Did you see anybody go to the van?’

Answer: ‘No.’

[Next question:] ‘Did the beating end?’

Answer: ‘No.’ ” 

Echols confirmed the transcript’s accuracy but surmised that he “wasn’t in [his] right mind-set”

when he previously answered the questions. Echols added that “[he] probably wasn’t thinking 

clearly. It was a long time ago. Some things just go away and come back.”

¶ 20 Turning back to the evening of September 3, 2005, defendant asked Echols, “How much 

alcohol did you have to drink that evening?” Echols responded, “It had to be no more than three 

beers.” Defendant asked how much cocaine Echols ingested that evening, leading Echols to 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 9 - 

respond, “[A]bout $50 worth,” which was enough for him to get high. Echols reiterated that he 

had used more drugs after returning home after the party.

¶ 21 Defendant asked whether Echols had previously told the same detective that Lucio was the 

Latin King’s Inca at the time of the murder, in contradiction to his earlier testimony in which 

Echols implicated defendant as the gang’s leader. Echols agreed. Echols similarly acknowledged 

never testifying that defendant was the gang’s “Inca” at Vargas’s murder trial but stated that he 

was “not sure if [he] was asked that.”

¶ 22 Noting that Echols’s plea deal required him to “give testimony against anybody who [was] 

involved in the murder of George Caro,” defendant asked Echols whether it was true that he had

not always “honored [his] end of the bargain.” Echols acknowledged that he refused to testify in 

Hernandez’s and Aguilar’s 2008 trial for their roles in the Caro murder. Echols also acknowledged 

that, while the judge in that case warned him that he would lose his plea deal as a result of his 

refusal, he ultimately received “no sanction whatsoever” for failing to testify.

¶ 23 On redirect examination, the State first questioned Echols about his testimony from 

Vargas’s trial, in which he initially denied having seen a bat or other weapon used to beat Caro. 

The State elicited testimony establishing that later in his testimony in that trial, Echols had 

acknowledged that he had in fact seen a baseball bat or other stick-like weapon that was used to 

strike Caro. Echols also acknowledged admitting this fact both to prosecutors and his own attorney 

before Vargas’s trial took place.

¶ 24 Officer Guillermo Trujillo testified that in September 2005, he was employed in the 

investigations unit of the Aurora Police Department and took part in the investigation of Caro’s 

murder. As part of these duties, he and two other officers arranged three line-ups as part of their 

investigation against defendant, Hernandez, and Vargas, who were all suspects in the murder. In 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 10 - 

each of their separate line-ups, Echols identified defendant, Hernandez, and Vargas as being 

involved in Caro’s beating. On cross-examination, defendant asked Trujillo whether he was aware 

of if Echols was “trying to get himself some kind of a plea deal” by participating in the line-ups, 

but Trujillo “[had] no recollection of that.”

¶ 25 Roman Lucio testified that he was currently serving a 20-year sentence at the United States 

Prison System in Terre Haute since November 1, 2006, after he pleaded guilty to “multiple counts 

of drugs and drug conspiracies.” Once Lucio was taken into federal custody, he entered “into an 

agreement to cooperate” with the State, presumably with regards to the investigations surrounding

various State offenses, including Caro’s murder. He also pleaded guilty in two separate cases for 

“conspiracy to commit murder” as part of his plea deal and was sentenced to 26 years’ 

incarceration in the Illinois Department of Corrections for each of these offenses. One of these 

cases involved the shooting of John Suarez; the other involved the beating death of Caro. As part 

of Lucio’s deal, he would not be charged with murder for either killing and his state sentences—

which were to be served at 50%—were to be served concurrently with his federal sentence.

¶ 26 Lucio testified that he had first become affiliated with the Latin Kings at an early age, when 

he was “probably in between 10 and 12 years old,” and remained a Latin King until at least 

November 2006, when he was incarcerated. Lucio then gave his version of the Latin King’s 

hierarchy. Like Echols, he described how the leader of the Latin Kings in Aurora was referred to 

as “[t]he Inca.” The second in command was referred to as “Cacique,” followed by the chairman 

of the “Chapter Crown Council,” which was composed of “[b]etween five and seven” members. 

Each chapter of the Latin Kings had their own crown council. Below the chairman, the next in the 

gang’s hierarchy was the gang’s treasurer, followed by a position called the “Enforcer.” During 

his tenure as a Latin King, Lucio held positions as chairman of the Chapter Crown Council, 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 11 - 

“Enforcer,” and “Inca.” In contrast to Echols’s earlier testimony, Lucio testified that he was the 

gang’s “Inca” in 2005, although defendant had also been a candidate for the position at that time. 

After Lucio was chosen as the gang’s “Inca,” defendant was chosen to be the gang’s “Cacique.”

¶ 27 Lucio described the events that took place during the evening of September 3, 2005. Before 

arriving at Anna Ortiz’s party, he, Aguilar, Vargas, Hernandez, and defendant were at Jose 

Lozano’s house. In contrast to Echols’s earlier testimony, Lucio testified that Echols was also with 

the Latin Kings at Lozano’s house before Lucio used his SUV to drive the men to Ortiz’s party. 

There, he saw Caro in Ortiz’s living room. After walking into the room, Lucio “shook up” with 

Caro and asked what his name was and where he was from. Caro told him he was from “ThirtyThird,” which was a chapter of the Latin Kings located in Chicago. 

¶ 28 Later that night, Echols approached Lucio to tell him that Caro wanted to “holler” at him, 

meaning he wanted to speak with Lucio. During the ensuing conversation, Caro was “portraying 

to be some Latin King” and asked if Lucio wanted to “borrow some guns from him.” After this, 

Lucio entered Ortiz’s bathroom, where he found Aguilar, Vargas, Hernandez, and Defendant, who 

were “already plotting before [he] went inside.” The four Latin Kings were listening in on Lucio’s 

conversation with Caro. The men told him that Caro was spreading rumors about him, specifically 

that Lucio “got [his] ass whooped by White Folks6 in the county [jail].” Lucio told them that he 

wished to speak to Caro outside. Defendant peeked out of the bathroom to look at Caro, and said, 

“I know a trick when I see a trick.” A “trick” was someone who was known to speak with police. 

Before leaving the bathroom, Lucio—who had already been drinking that night—smoked 

marijuana with Aguilar. After reentering the living room, Lucio and defendant stared down Caro.

6 According to Lucio, “White Folks” was another individual’s nickname.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 12 - 

¶ 29 Lucio, Vargas, and Aguilar left the house. Once they were outside, Lucio told Aguilar that 

he wanted to question Caro about “running [his] name through the dirt.” Lucio planned on fighting 

Caro if it were true that Caro was spreading rumors about him. Lucio continued smoking 

marijuana. Before Aguilar was able to go inside to get Caro, Caro already left the house with 

Echols, Hernandez, and defendant. The men all walked away from Ortiz’s house, heading south 

on the sidewalk. While they were walking, Lucio grabbed Caro, put his arm around Caro’s neck 

and asked whether he had been spreading rumors about him getting beat up while in county jail. 

Caro told Lucio that he wanted to become “A-Town,” meaning that he wanted to join the Aurora 

Latin Kings. At this point, Lucio didn’t know whether Caro was already “a King or not right there,” 

as required to be transferred to the Aurora chapter of the gang. Lucio relayed the request to 

Hernandez, who held a position as the gang’s “Enforcer,” requiring him to question Caro pursuant 

to the request.

¶ 30 Before the men had an opportunity to question Caro, he answered an incoming phone call 

from his sister. While Caro spoke with his sister, the other men spoke about giving Caro a violation. 

After speaking with his sister, Caro eventually accepted the violation. After taking a vote, Lucio, 

defendant, Echols, Hernandez, and Vargas decided that the violation should last one minute. 

Hernandez volunteered to keep track of the time, and defendant struck Caro. Vargas was crouched 

down behind Caro, causing Caro to immediately fall. Echols and Aguilar acted as lookouts while 

the rest of the men punched and kicked Caro. Somebody told Lucio to stop hitting Caro, and Lucio 

saw Caro lying on the ground, attempting to protect his face. He got up once more, “and then he 

got put down again.” Lucio could tell a minute had passed, but Hernandez failed to announce as 

much. Lucio told the other men to stop hitting Caro, and after some more moments, they did.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 13 - 

¶ 31 Caro was “laid out.” Lucio touched his arm in order to see if he could detect a pulse. Caro 

was silent. Lucio then touched his neck to see if he could feel Caro’s pulse. Lucio told the others 

that Caro was alive, “but that he wasn’t looking too good.” Vargas removed Caro’s shirt, another 

gang member took his shoes, and Echols took Caro’s phone. Later, Hernandez removed Caro’s 

necklace. Hernandez, Aguilar, and Lucio carried Caro to the back of a neighboring house, before 

he was eventually moved to the house’s side yard.

¶ 32 Lucio told defendant that he wanted to take Caro to the hospital, although he acknowledged 

that Caro was most likely beyond saving at that point. Defendant “didn’t want to listen” to Lucio.

Defendant told Vargas to bring him a bat because he was “going to show him how it was done.” 

Vargas went into Lucio’s SUV and retrieved a short, wooden bat before handing it to defendant. 

Defendant stood over Caro, and Lucio turned away once he saw defendant swing the bat, because 

he “didn’t want to see that.” He heard the bat hit Caro’s body “about four times.” Defendant 

returned the bat to Vargas, who attempted to give it back to Lucio. Lucio removed the grip from 

the bat but refused to take the bat back. Vargas volunteered to keep it. Lucio testified that the 

men—including Echols—returned to his SUV and left. Lucio dropped off Hernandez and Aguilar 

within walking distance of their homes before dropping off Echols and defendant at Echols’s 

home. Lucio returned to his father’s home afterwards. Lucio reported never having seen Caro’s 

personal items or the bat ever again.

¶ 33 On cross-examination, defendant asked Lucio whether all full-fledged members of the 

Latin Kings needed to know who their Inca was. In response, Lucio indicated that full-fledged 

members “could know if they want to.” Defendant then asked whether it was “clear to [Lucio] that 

Mr. Echols knew that [Lucio was] in charge, that [he was] the Inca[.]” Lucio responded, “He knew 

that I was the Inca.”
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 14 - 

¶ 34 Defendant asked Lucio about the previous trials that he had testified in—specifically those 

of Aguilar, Hernandez, and Vargas. Defendant asked whether it was Lucio’s position that 

defendant was the first gang member to have struck Caro. Lucio responded, “That’s correct.” 

Referring to Aguilar’s and Hernandez’s 2008 trial for their roles in Caro’s killing, the following 

exchange occurred:

“DEFENDANT: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers:

[Question]: [‘]Now, so there is a discussion about a violation, and then what 

happened?’ 

Answer: ‘Shorty got behind him.’

*** 

‘Then what happened?’ You were asked. And your answer was: ‘[Hernandez] 

punched him,’ right?”

Lucio responded that he could not remember what he had said, but that he was sure that defendant 

was the first one to strike Caro. He continued, “If I made a mistake or confused something, that’s 

all it was. I was not lying.” Defendant then read portions of Lucio’s testimony from Vargas’s trial, 

in which Lucio again claimed that Hernandez was the first to strike Caro. Again, Lucio indicated 

that he could remember testifying to that fact.

¶ 35 Investigator Jeff Hahn was accepted as a gang expert before testifying that the Latin Kings 

were a major gang in Aurora during 2005. Hahn described the hierarchy of the gang:

“[It is] [k]ind of structured as you would see a corporate structure. Number one, the 

term is called an Inca, which would be like the president. Their number two is called the 

Cacique, which would be your vice-president, and it kind of flows down. You have an 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 15 - 

Enforcer, Secretary, Treasurer, and so on; falls all the way down to your Shorties or your 

street soldiers, which would be your gang members.”

Hahn later specified that “shorties” were members who had not yet received their crowns. Hahn 

also confirmed the existence of the Latin King’s Crown Council, which includes a chairperson and 

five other members. The Crown Council acts as “an oversight committee” for the gang. Hahn also 

described the concept of “violations,” opining that “[c]ooperating with the police during an 

investigation” was “pretty much ruled as the number one no-no” within the gang. He also 

demonstrated the Latin King’s hand signs and “shake up.” Hahn went on to describe how Latin 

Kings “get their crown[s]” typically by committing “an act of violence,” which did not have to 

cause another’s death. Hahn also described “violations,” and confirmed that Latin Kings who 

“shook up” without first receiving their crown would typically receive “violations.” 

¶ 36 In 2005, Hahn was aware that Lucio was the gang’s “Inca,” that defendant was the gang’s 

“Cacique,” and that Hernandez was the gang’s “Enforcer.” He noted that Vargas, Echols, and 

Aguilar were also affiliated with the Latin Kings in 2005. Hahn indicated that while Caro was a 

member of the Latin Kings, he was not active in the gang in 2005. Caro had previously been 

affiliated with one of the Latin King’s Chicago chapters, “in the area of Thirty-Third and Morgan.”

¶ 37 The parties stipulated that if Dr. Larry Blum were to have testified, he would testify 

consistently with a transcript introduced by the State, in which he previously described opinions 

he made pursuant to Caro’s autopsy.7 In the transcript, Dr. Blum described approximately 22 

7 While there is no date on the State’s transcript, the transcript was presumably made during 

either Vargas’s or Hernandez’s and Aguilar’s trial for Caro’s murder. The autopsy described in the 

transcript was actually performed by Dr. Bryan Mitchell, who passed away prior to defendant’s 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 16 - 

“blunt force trauma-type injuries” that Caro had suffered, including “a number of contusions, 

abrasions, and lacerations noted primarily to [Caro’s] head region.” Caro also suffered similar 

types of blunt force trauma “to the trunk, hands, wrist—wrists and arms.” Caro showed signs of a 

“picket-fence pattern” and a “chevron-type pattern” on his face, which was consistent with “the 

shoe or boot or something with a repeating pattern on it.” These injuries were presumed to have 

been caused by a stomping motion. Caro also had other injuries and marks on his face that 

evidenced his being struck with a baseball bat, as well as other various bruises and defensive 

wounds on other portions of his body. Numerous wounds were consistent with “the use of the 

knuckles to strike the victim.”

¶ 38 Dr. Blum’s prior testimony also described Caro’s various internal injuries. Caro’s “primary 

injuries were in the head area, beneath the scalp.” Caro’s brain was “swollen or edematous and 

bloody.” When asked whether “any one single injury that was internal to the head” would have 

caused death, Dr. Blum answered, “In this particular case, it was the multiplicity, the multiple 

blows that led to the death.” Dr. Blum opined that Caro did not die instantly. He also reasoned 

that, based on his examination, “force was applied to [Caro’s] head for—from multiple directions.” 

Caro’s toxicology results suggested that he had ingested marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol prior to 

his death, but these compounds had no connection with his death. In sum, Blum concluded that 

“Mr. Caro died of multiple blunt force head trauma.”

¶ 39 The parties also stipulated that, if Aurora Police Evidence Technician Armando 

Montemayor were to testify, he would testify consistently with another transcript introduced by 

hearing. Dr. Blum reviewed Mitchell’s autopsy report, as well as the coroner’s investigative report, 

autopsy photographs, and various transcripts in forming his opinions.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 17 - 

the State.8 In that transcript, Montemayor described arriving to the scene of Caro’s murder, where 

he found an area of blood “on the floor or parkway,” as well as Caro’s identification card, which 

was “found on the sidewalk just in front of 616 North Lincoln.” Montemayor photographed Caro’s 

body and confirmed that Caro only “had a pair of jeans shorts on and a pair of socks” when he was 

discovered. 

¶ 40 The State rested. Defendant then offered several stipulations, before also resting his case. 

Defendant never testified at the hearing. After the parties gave their closing arguments, the court 

rendered its decision. In it, the court noted the credibility concerns raised by Echols’s and Lucio’s 

testimony: 

“I know that [Echols and Lucio] had both made deals with the government regarding their 

role in this incident. They both have other significant history of violence and murder 

beyond this case. But also, as Latin Kings, they do face significant personal risk by their 

testimony in this case.” 

Next, the court listed several consistencies between Echols’s and Lucio’s testimonies:

“There are points of intersection in their testimony. Namely, that Echols was a 

lookout. That Lucio was involved in the bearing. And based on that, they literally had 

different viewpoints or vantage points. Echols down at the corner and Lucio involved in 

the beating.

However, much of what they testify to is in fact corroborated by the physical 

evidence. Namely, that the fight began or the beating began on the parkway. Bloods [sic] 

8 Again, Montemayor’s previous testimony is undated, but we infer that the officer testified 

at one of the previous two trials resulting from Caro’s killing.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 18 - 

was found there. That the victim was moved to the location where he was—his body was 

ultimately recovered. That the victim was punched with hands and fists, he was kicked and 

stomped on with feet, and that he was hit with a bat or bat-like object, and that the victim’s 

shoes and shirt were taken. Those are all corroborated by the physical evidence.”

¶ 41 The court then discussed some of the inconsistencies between Echols’s and Lucio’s 

testimony, which it found “less relevant *** to the ultimate decision,” such as the conflicting 

testimonies of how the Latin Kings “all got to and from [Ortiz’s] house and who threw the first 

punch.” The court conceded that “the motive of this incident is unclear,” as the murder could have 

been the result of Caro’s purported gossip about Lucio, or Caro’s unauthorized handshake with 

the other Latin Kings. However, either conflicting theory suggested that “[Caro] wanted to be ATown” and that the Latin Kings “voted to do a violation and that [Caro] accepted the violation.” 

The court recognized that both Echols and Lucio testified that “[t]he violation was administered 

by [Hernandez], [Lucio], [Vargas] and defendant. All four at once who were hitting the victim 

with their hands and their fists. They were stomping on him with their feet.” While it was unclear 

who exactly used the bat during the beating, “either [Vargas] and/or this defendant used the bat or 

stick to hit the defendant in the head. It made a sound like a smashing pumpkin and that is 

consistent with the medical examiner’s report.” Despite the inconsistencies in Echols’s and Lucio’s 

testimony, the court concluded that “the relevant points of intersection of their testimony is 

corroborated by the physical evidence.”

¶ 42 The court entered acquittals on counts one (intentional murder) and three (knowing acts 

would cause death), but entered a finding of “not not guilty” as to count two (intent to do great 

bodily harm), count four (knowing strong probability of death), count five (knowing strong 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 19 - 

probability of great bodily harm), and count six (felony murder). Defendant filed a motion for a 

new discharge hearing, but the court denied his motion. Defendant timely appealed.

¶ 43 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 44 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove that defendant was involved in 

the beating death of George Caro beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, defendant argues that 

Echols’s and Lucio’s testimonies were so inconsistent and unbelievable that they could not have 

established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also argues that the court’s 

finding of “not not guilty” should be reversed because no physical evidence linked defendant to 

Caro’s death. We address these arguments in turn.

¶ 45 “It is well settled that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const., 

amend. XIV) bars the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. 

People v. Waid, 221 Ill. 2d 464, 470 (2006) (citing Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 

(1992)). Once a defendant has been found unfit, the court should conduct a discharge hearing in 

order to determine whether to enter a judgment of acquittal. People v. Olsson, 2011 IL App (2d) 

091351, ¶ 4. This hearing is not a criminal prosecution and is not designed to determine guilt. Id.

Instead, the question of a defendant’s guilt should be deferred “until the defendant is fit to stand 

trial.” Id. (citing Waid, 221 Ill.2d at 471). Therefore, an unfit defendant will not be convicted of 

his or her crimes even if the evidence at the discharge hearing sufficiently establishes the 

defendant’s guilt. Id. In this situation, the defendant should instead be found to be “not not guilty.” 

Id. (citing Waid, 221 Ill. 2d at 478). “ ‘Although a court’s determination at a discharge hearing that 

the State has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not constitute a technical 

determination of guilt, the standard of proof is the same as that required for a criminal 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 20 - 

conviction.’ ” People v. Peterson, 404 Ill. App. 3d 145, 150 (2010) (quoting People v. Williams, 

312 Ill. App. 3d 232, 234).

¶ 46 When a reviewing court is presented with a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence, that court should not seek to retry the defendant. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 

(1985). Rather, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

“This standard of review does not allow the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of 

the fact finder on questions involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the 

witnesses.” People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 280-81 (2009). 

¶ 47 Here, despite the various weaknesses in both Echols’s and Lucio’s testimonies, as well as 

the lack of any physical evidence specifically tying defendant to Caro’s murder, we find that a 

rational trier of fact could have found defendant “not not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 48 A. Echols’s Testimony

¶ 49 First, when taken in the light most favorable to the State, Echols’s testimony reasonably 

supported a finding that defendant was “not not guilty” of Caro’s murder. “A conviction shall not 

be reversed simply because the defendant claims a witness is not credible.” People v. Tenney, 347 

Ill. App. 3d 359, 366 (2004). Regardless, accomplice testimony should be “cautiously scrutinized” 

upon appeal. Id. Accomplice testimony may sustain a criminal conviction where a trier of fact was 

apprised of any weaknesses in the testimony and nonetheless was convinced of a defendant’s guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. These weaknesses may include malice towards the accused, lenient 

plea deals, or even the lack of corroborating evidence. People v. Wollenberg, 37 Ill. 2d 480, 484 

(1967). These standards apply whether a jury or a judge have found a defendant to be “not not 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 21 - 

guilty.” See People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d 92, 114 (2007) (finding that the same standards apply 

when determining the sufficiency of the evidence in either a bench or jury trial) (citing People v. 

Cooper, 194 Ill.2d 419, 431 (2000)). However, while the fact finder’s decision to accept testimony 

is entitled to great deference, it “is not conclusive and does not bind the reviewing court.” People 

v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). 

¶ 50 Here, we find that the record contained ample evidence justifying the court’s reliance on 

Echols’s testimony. As the court correctly pointed out, much of Echols’s testimony was 

corroborated by other evidence adduced at defendant’s discharge hearing. For instance, Echols 

testified that he and Caro drank alcohol and used cocaine prior to Caro’s death. This was 

corroborated by Dr. Blum’s stipulated testimony, in which he described how Caro’s toxicology 

report indicated the presence of these compounds. Echols’s testimony concerning the location of 

Caro’s beating was corroborated by Montemayor’s discovery of a patch of blood on the sidewalk

near 616 North Lincoln. Echols testified that defendant and the other Latin Kings moved Caro’s 

body to a nearby “side yard” after beating him; this was corroborated by the testimony of Officer 

Fancsali, Officer Kubis, and Montemayor, who all located Caro’s body as part of their 

investigation. Echols’s testimony of these locations was also consistent with Lucio’s testimony on 

the subject.

¶ 51 Much of Echols’s testimony concerning the nature of the beating was also corroborated. In 

describing the beating, Echols testified that the men gathered around Caro and all used their closed 

fists to strike him. This is consistent with Dr. Blum’s stipulated testimony that many of Caro’s 

wounds were indicative of “the use of the knuckles to strike the victim” and that “force was applied 

to [Caro’s] head for—from multiple directions.” Echols testified that after Caro fell, the gang 

members began to stomp on him. To this point, Dr. Blum identified a “picket-fence pattern” and a 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 22 - 

“chevron-type pattern” on Caro’s face, which he found to be consistent with a “shoe or boot or 

something with a repeating pattern on it.” Dr. Blum further testified that the “chevron-type pattern” 

was “caused more by stomping motion” rather than a kicking motion. Echols also testified that “a 

bat or a stick” was used to strike Caro. Based on Caro’s wounds, Dr. Blum agreed that several of 

Caro’s injuries were “consistent with being struck by a baseball bat.” Finally, Echols described 

how Caro’s shirt, shoes, and other personal belongings were removed after the beating. Indeed, 

Officer Fancsali, Officer Kubis, and Montemayor all testified that Caro only wore shorts and socks 

when they discovered his body. These details were mostly consistent with Lucio’s testimony 

concerning the beating as well.9

¶ 52 In addition to Echols’s recollection of the actual beating, other portions of his testimony 

concerning the identity of the involved parties and a potential motive were similarly corroborated. 

Echols identified himself, defendant, Lucio, Vargas, Hernandez, and Aguilar as all being members 

of the Latin Kings during 2005. Hahn confirmed these individuals’ affiliation with the gang at that 

time. Echols also testified that “shorties” who have “shaken up” with full-fledged members are 

subject to “violations.” Again, this information was confirmed by Hahn. 

¶ 53 However, Echols’s testimony was inconsistent at times. For instance, as defendant points 

out: 

“Echols was not consistent on the origins of his gang membership. He testified that he was 

introduced to gang membership through family but acknowledged during crossexamination that he previously testified at Vargas’ trial that he was introduced to gang 

membership through friends at school.”

9 Unlike Echols, Lucio never specifically testified that Caro was “stomped” on.
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 23 - 

The court made no reference to this inconsistency in delivering its ruling. However, because the 

exact origins of Echols’s gang membership—occurring two years prior to Caro’s murder—were

not relevant to any material issue in this case, any impeachment concerning the matter was purely 

collateral. People v. Santos, 211 Ill. 2d 395, 405 (2004). While any type of impeachment may 

typically be developed during cross-examination, cross-examiners may not impeach witnesses on 

collateral matters. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 269. Although the State failed to raise an objection to 

defendant’s impeachment, it was nonetheless improper, and therefore it should be accorded no 

weight when determining Echols’s credibility. See Rokeby-Johnson v. Derek Bryant Insurance 

Brokers, Ltd., 230 Ill. App. 3d 308, 315 (1992) (holding that “[w]hen a matter is being heard at 

bench only competent evidence is considered”).

¶ 54 Defendant also argues that Echols’s inconsistent testimony concerning the hierarchy of the 

Latin Kings and defendant’s ranking position rendered his testimony unbelievable. Specifically, 

defendant contends that “Echols testified that the leader of the Latin Kings street gang was called 

the ‘Inca’ and that [defendant] was the Inca in September 2005. But on cross examination[,] Echols 

testified that he was ‘[n]ot sure’ if an Inca was the leader of the gang or not.” We disagree with 

defendant’s assessment of Echols’s testimony. The exact responsibilities of the gang’s “Inca” is 

another collateral matter to the material issues in this case. Santos, 211 Ill. 2d at 405. Therefore, 

any impeachment concerning the matter was improper and should not bear any weight in the 

court’s credibility assessment. See Derek Bryant Insurance Brokers, Ltd., 230 Ill. App. 3d at 315. 

While Echols did admit to previously testifying that Lucio was the gang’s “Inca” (in contrast to 

his more recent assertions), the court was still well within its discretion to find Echols’s testimony 

credible. As provided earlier, much of Echols’s clear testimony concerning the hierarchy of the 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 24 - 

Latin Kings, the rules concerning “violations,” and the various members of the gang were 

corroborated by Hahn.

¶ 55 Defendant similarly argues that Echols’s testimony concerning the use of a bat or sticklike object was inconsistent. Defendant points out that during the discharge hearing, Echols 

testified that Vargas used a bat or a similar weapon to beat Caro. However, he had not mentioned 

the existence of such a weapon when speaking to the detective at the Du Page County Youth Home 

and also denied seeing a bat while testifying at Vargas’s earlier trial. We add that Echols’s 

testimony also contradicted Lucio’s version of events, in which defendant was the individual who 

struck Caro with the bat. In addressing this argument, we first point out—as defendant concedes—

that during Echols’s cross-examination at Vargas’s trial, he did eventually concede to seeing a bat. 

While it is troubling that Echols’s recollection of the weapon was inconsistent, Echols’s most 

recent testimony on the subject was thoroughly corroborated. Echols and Lucio testified that a bat 

was used in Caro’s murder. Dr. Blum noted that several of Caro’s injuries suggested that he was 

struck with a bat or similar weapon. While Echols’s and Lucio’s accounts differed as to who used 

the bat, both men commonly recalled that Vargas at least handled the bat at points of the beating. 

Furthermore, as Lucio testified that defendant struck Caro with the bat only after the group moved 

out of Echols’s sight, it is logical that Echols did not observe defendant use the bat against Caro in 

order to testify to this fact. 

¶ 56 Defendant also takes issue with the fact that Echols had previously lied to police when 

initially questioned about Caro’s death on September 4, 2005. Citing People v. Gutierrez, 

defendant provides that lying to a police officer diminishes one’s credibility. 387 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 

(2008). Defendant similarly points out that Echols’s credibility was also reduced by virtue of his 

plea agreement, by his admitted drug use during the dates in question, and by the fact that his 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 25 - 

testimony as an accomplice was already deserving of suspicion. Regardless, the sum weight of the 

evidence here does not compel us to overturn the court’s assessment of Echols’s credibility. Again, 

accomplice testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction where the court had knowledge of the 

weaknesses of the accomplice’s testimony and was nonetheless convinced of a defendant’s guilt. 

Tenney, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 366; Wollenberg, 37 Ill. 2d at 484. Here, the court had knowledge of 

all of defendant’s proffered concerns, and even cited most of these weaknesses in its oral ruling. 

Therefore, the court could rely on Echols’s testimony in finding defendant “not not guilty.” 

Tenney, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 366. Considering Echols’s testimony in the light most favorable to the 

State, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found Echols’s testimony sufficiently 

credible to establish that defendant was “not not guilty” of Caro’s murder.

¶ 57 B. Lucio’s Testimony

¶ 58 We also find that a rational trier of fact could have found Lucio’s testimony to be 

sufficiently credible to establish defendant’s culpability. Much of Lucio’s testimony concerning 

the location and nature of the beating mirrored that of Echols’s. Both men testified that Caro’s 

beating began on the sidewalk, which was confirmed by the patch of blood that Montemayor 

located when he first arrived on the scene. Like Echols, Lucio testified that Caro’s body was moved 

to a neighboring yard after he was initially beaten. This testimony was corroborated by the 

collective testimonies of Officer Fancsali, Officer Kubis, and Montemayor. Echols’s and Lucio’s 

testimony regarding the identification of the involved parties was nearly identical. Both men 

testified that Echols and Aguilar acted as lookouts while Lucio, defendant, Hernandez, and Vargas 

all battered Caro. Both men testified that Lucio, defendant, Hernandez, and Vargas first used their 

hands and feet to beat Caro, before he was eventually struck with a bat-like weapon. Again, this 

testimony was consistent with Dr. Blum’s descriptions of Caro’s injuries. Finally, both men 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 26 - 

testified that Caro’s shirt and shoes were removed from Caro’s body, as subsequently corroborated 

by the testimony of Officer Fancsali, Officer Kubis, and Montemayor.

¶ 59 Lucio’s recitation of the Latin King’s hierarchy and rules was completely corroborated by 

Officer Hahn’s testimony. Additionally, Lucio’s testimony concerning his, defendant’s, and 

Hernandez’s leadership positions within the gang were also corroborated by Hahn. Lucio testified 

that Caro claimed to be from “Thirty-Third,” but that he personally doubted whether Caro was still 

an active Latin King. Hahn similarly testified that Caro was from the Latin King’s Chicago 

chapters, “in the area of Thirty-Third and Morgan,” but that he was not active in 2005.

¶ 60 However, similar to Echols’s testimony, Lucio’s testimony also exhibited certain 

weaknesses. As defendant points out, Lucio’s testimony concerning the identity of the individual 

who first struck Caro varied. During Hernandez’s and Aguilar’s trial, Lucio testified that 

Hernandez first struck Caro. However, in the instant hearing, Lucio testified that defendant first 

struck Caro.

¶ 61 Certain portions of Lucio’s testimony also conflicted with Echols’s narration of events. 

While Echols had testified that he and Caro were at his mother’s house prior to attending Ortiz’s 

party, Lucio testified that Echols was with him, defendant, Hernandez, Aguilar, and Vargas at Jose 

Lozano’s house earlier in the evening and that they arrived at Ortiz’s house together. While Echols 

described Lucio’s vehicle as being a van, Lucio specified that he had been driving his Lexus SUV 

on the evening of Caro’s murder. As discussed above, Echols testified that Vargas had used a bat 

or similar weapon when striking Caro. On the other hand, Lucio recalled only defendant hitting 

Caro with a weapon. Lucio testified that Echols took Caro’s cell phone after the beating—a fact 

that was never mentioned by Echols. Furthermore, the motive behind Caro’s killing varied between 

Echols’s and Lucio’s testimonies. According to Echols, the men beat Caro as part of a violation to 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 27 - 

redress Caro’s unauthorized handshake with the full-fledged members of the Latin Kings. 

According to Lucio, the violation was in response to his belief that Caro had spread rumors about 

him while in jail.

¶ 62 Regardless, as the court noted, these points of contention were “less relevant, frankly, to 

the ultimate decision” as to defendant’s culpability. Any questions concerning the group’s 

whereabouts before Ortiz’s party, the type of vehicle Lucio drove, the identity of Caro’s first 

attacker, or the identity of the individual who struck Caro with a bat all bear little relevance in 

determining whether defendant participated in the beating. Furthermore, any disagreement 

concerning the motives behind the beating can be explained by Echols’s and Lucio’s differing

viewpoints before the murder. Echols believed that the violation resulted from Caro “shaking up” 

with the full-fledged Latin Kings based on a conversation that he heard between Hernandez and 

defendant. Because Lucio did not take part in the conversation, his ignorance of this purported 

motive is understandable. Lucio even acknowledged that the other Latin Kings were already 

plotting before he met with them in Ortiz’s bathroom. Furthermore, according to Lucio, Echols 

was not present when the gang discussed the rumors Caro allegedly spread while in jail. Therefore,

Echols’s ignorance of Lucio’s purported motive is also plausible.

¶ 63 In addition to these inconsistencies, defendant argues that Lucio lacked credibility for other 

reasons. Namely, defendant argues that Lucio’s credibility is irreparably diminished by his drug 

use during the dates in question, his prior convictions, the existence of his plea agreement, and the 

fact that he was an accomplice to Caro’s murder. However, as we have already discussed, the court 

was fully aware of all of these weaknesses in issuing its decision. Therefore, because the trial court 

still found Lucio’s testimony to be credible, his accomplice testimony was sufficient to establish 

defendant was “not not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenney, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 366. 
2021 IL App (2d) 180110-U 

- 28 - 

¶ 64 Defendant argues that People v. Wilson, 66 Ill. 2d 346 (1977) and People v. Ash, 102 Ill. 

2d 485 (1984) warrant a different result. In both of these cases, our supreme court found that the 

accomplice testimony presented at trial was insufficient to sustain each of the defendants’ 

convictions. Wilson, 66 Ill. 2d at 350; Ash, 102 Ill. 2d at 493. However, as the State points out, the 

accomplice testimony in both of these cases was undermined by the respective victims’ inability 

to sufficiently identify each of the defendants. Wilson, 66 Ill. 2d at 350; Ash, 102 Ill. 2d at 494. 

Because the State’s case here was not subject to such a grave deficiency, we find that these cases 

are distinguishable. For all of these reasons, viewing Echols’s and Lucio’s corroborated 

testimonies in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact could 

have found defendant “not not guilty” of Caro’s murder.

¶ 65 C. Lack of Direct, Physical Evidence

¶ 66 Finally, defendant suggests that because there was “no physical evidence linking 

[defendant] to the beating of Caro,” “no reasonable evidence established [defendant’s] guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, we disagree. “The lack of physical evidence in a case does 

not raise a reasonable doubt where an eyewitness has positively identified the defendant as the 

perpetrator of the crime.” People v. Reed, 396 Ill. App. 3d 636, 649 (2009). Here, because Echols 

and Lucio both credibly identified defendant as having taken part in Caro’s killing, the lack of 

physical evidence specifically linking defendant to the crime does not raise a reasonable doubt of 

defendant’s culpability. See Reed, 396 Ill. App. 3d at 649. 

¶ 67 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 68 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County. 

¶ 69 Affirmed.