Docket No . 107309.



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

THE PE OP LE O F TH E S TAT E OF I L LIN OI S, Appe llee, v.

RODNEY ADK

INS, Appelle e.
Opinion filed October 21, 2010.

JUSTICE GARMA

N deliv ered t he j udg men

t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Chi ef Ju st ice Fit zg er ald and Justices Freem an, Thomas, Ka

rmeier, and B ur ke c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Jus t ice Kilbride t oo k no par t in the d ecisio n.

OPINI ON

Fo llowing a j ury

tri al i n th e c i rcu i t cou rt of Coo k Co un t y, defend ant Ro dn ey Ad kin s w as fo un d g uilt y o f fir st degree m urder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a) (West 2002 )) , home in vasion (720 I LCS 5/12–11(a)(2) (West 2002 )), an d residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19 –3(a) (Wes t 200 2) ). He w aived a jury t rial for t he se nt encing phase. In a sub sequent ben ch trial, he wassent ence d t o d eat h. He fi le d
a moti on f or a ne w t r ial, wh ich wa s d en ied by t he t r ial c o ur t

. His appeal lies dir ec t ly

to thi s court

under Suprem

e Court Rule 603 (134 I ll. 2d R. 603 ). Fo r the reas o ns s et fo r t h be lo w, we affir m his convi ction an d sentence

.-2- BACK GROUND The Crime S cene On Jul y 31, 2003, two burglaries and one m

urderwere comm

itted at 93 6 W ash i n gto n Boul ev ard i

n O ak Pa rk. W hen Fran k Peri no, a re sident of t he building, re t ur ned fr om wo rk t hat aft er noo n and entered thr ou gh

the rea r en tran ce , h e n oti ce d that the b ac k door of Cat her ineMcAv

in chey ’s condom

in ium uni t had been forced open. He calle d t he po li ce and le

t t hem in side the bui

ldi ng when they

arriv ed. Off ic er Michael Kelly and t wo ot her officer s ent er ed t he uni t t hat had been broke n i nto an d f ound McA

vi nchey , f ace down on the f l oor. Fi ref i ghters wh

o respon ded detected

no v i tal si gns

. The off ic er who processed

the sc en e ob serv ed

tha t the rea r door to the apartmen

t had been

kic ked i n. The f oot prin t o n the doorwas upside dow

n , w i th th e h ee l at th e to p o f the pr int and t he t oe at t he bo t t o m. On a kit chen c ou nt er just inside t he do or , t he off ic er found a pla st ic cap shaped

l i ke a c ap f or asoda bott le

but “f our o r fi ve i nch es around” with a

slot in it, as if a l

arge bott le

had b een used as aban

k. In t he k it che n sink , h e fo und a la rg e k nife wit h a blo o ds t ain b en ea th it

. Th e k nife matc hed a set of k nives st or ed in a wo od en bloc k o n t he
coun ter. A t t ri al , a St at e Po lice DNA a nalyst t est ifi ed t hat she compared bl ood samples coll

ected at the

cri me s cene to sa m plesf rom de f en da n t, his girlfriend Rom

an ette Norwood, a

nd the vi cti m . Bl ood fou nd on the handle an

d blade of the knif

e was consist en

t wit h t he victim’ s. In t he living ro om, t he off

ic er f oun d the v i cti m l y i ng f ac e down on t he fl oor with a

la rge poo l of

bl ood ar ound h er head and neck . T he pool of bl ood had begun to dry at the edges. Clear fl uid f ound when t he bo dy w as mo ve d w as lat er de t er mined t o be sp ina l flu i d. A blo o ds t ain on t he bac k o f her shir t app ear ed t o ha ve bee n made by wi pi ng th e kn i f e b l ade on

the shi rt. The apartm

en t had be en ran sacked. Desk drawers an d dresser drawe rs were pull

ed out. Two purses appe ar ed to hav e been rif le d t hro ugh. An

em pty space on the desk, near

a prin ter and power cor d,
wa s t he siz e o f a c o mpu t er

. A lar ge pla st ic bo t t le w it h a p ict ur e o f a fo o t ba ll he l met on it was l yi ng on a ch ai r near the desk. The bottle had
no c ap a nd it app ear ed t o mat ch t he bo t t le cap fou nd in t he kit chen. Christ ineCalla

han was the vi

ctim ’s n ei ghbor. The two w omen,-3- along wi th Peri n o an d a f our th resi dent of the bui

ldi ng, us ed t he sa me locked entrance i

n the rear of the b

uild ing t o a cce ss t heir u nits. The lock did n ot al ways work. The back door to Calla han ’s apartme

nt was ap pr o ximat ely

20 feet f

rom the vi

ctim ’s b ack door. Call ahan’s apartment was al

so burgla rized on Jul y 31. Sev eral pi ece s of j ewel ry were t ake n, alo ng wit h a lar ge pla st ic bot t le with a Cleveland Bro wns l ogo i n w hi ch sh e s aved coi ns . Sh e i denti f i ed the bottl e f oun d on t he ch air in the victim ’s apartme nt as the one that had be en taken from her ap ar tmen t. At trial , a Stat e Police fi ngerpri nt anal ys t t estif ie d that she compared l ate n t f i n gerp ri n ts f rom th e cri me sc enes to exem

plarsf rom de f en da n t, Norwo od, and the victim . She fo und o ne finger pr int bel ongin g to the defe

ndan t o n the pl

astic b ot tle. The sam e off ic er who processed the m urder scene processed Calla han ’s apartme

nt. He observed that her

back door had

al so been kicked i n a nd he r ap artm en t ran sacked . He

f oun d a ci ga rette bu tt on t he f l oor at th e b ottom of a spi ral staircase that led to t he upper l evel of Calla han ’s un it. He co lle ct ed t he ciga re t t e but t and s ent it t o t he
cr ime la b f or pro cessi

ng. The Stat e Police DNA an al ys t t estif ie d at trial that th e m

al e D NA prof i l e f oun d on th e c i ga re tte b utt wo uld be expected to occur in a

pproxim ately one i n 650 bill ion bla

ck in div idual s, one i

n 2.1 tril l i on w

hi te i nd i vi dua l s, a nd one i n 2 .5 tri l l i on His pa nic unrelated in

div idual s. The profi

le ma tched defen dant’s DNA prof i l e.

Th e In ve sti ga ti on On Septem ber 8 an d 9, 200 3, No rw oo d wa s inte rview ed by t he Oak Park police. She was wea rin g a Guc ciwa

tch an d a pai r of pre scri ption eyegl asses, whi ch were taken f

rom her an

d in ven to ried as evi dence. Inf ormation f

rom thi s i nterviewle d police to a p aw n s hop and to the apa

rtme nt of Fan ny Robe rts, def endan t’s m other. A t th e pawn shop, police obtained

pawn sh

eets dated July

31, 2003,
co nt aining

defendan

t’s n am e. The pol i cerec ove

red a p ai r of
sun glass es f rom R oberts ’ ap artm

en t. On Sep t ember 1 0, 200 3, No rw oo d ga ve a video t ape d st at ement to Assist ant State’s

Attorne y Jam i e San tin i . In t his s t at eme nt , she sa id that she had been defendant’s girl fri end f or 13 years an

d that she was then living wit h him. She s tate d that a roun d J une 2 4 or 25, the y were-4- in Oak Park and “

he h ad me ri ng som eb ody ’s be l l ” to s eei f

the pers on was at ho me “[ s] o he co uld bu r gla r ize it

. ” S he wa lk ed back t o t he
corne r, wh er e d efe nd an t wa s w ait ing , an d t o ld h i m th at no one was hom e. He went to t he h

ouse and kicked the door in as s he w at che d fro m the a lley. She said t hat she d id no t ent er t he ho use . S he left and did n ot s ee

h i m ag ai n un ti l h e c am e to h i s c ous i n ’s h ous e l ate r w i th “so me tap es , VC R, DVD , a c oupl e of movies, ” which he said he got f rom th e house h e had b urgl ari zed. Norwood des cr ibed t heir ac t ivities o ver t he nex t several day s. On Ju ly 31 , 20 03 , s h e s l ep t un

ti lnoo n. E ar lier t ha t mo rning , she br iefly awoke when

de f en da nt l ef t. He ki ss ed he r on her ja w and sai d he was le av ingan d w o uld be ba ck

. He r et ur ne d a t ab o ut 12 :3 0 p

. m. , wh ile Norwood and def endan t’s mother

were watch i ng te l evi sion togethe

r. He wa s “s we at in g h ea vily ” and h e carried a

bl ack duff le bag. Defend ant pul

l ed two pa i rs of glasse s fro m his poc ket and gave them to Norwoo d. H e took

a w atch f rom h i s ot h er pocket an

d g av e i t to her. Sant ini showe d her pho t og ra phs o f the glasse s and t he watch that she had b een weari

ng earl ie ran d o f t he su ng las se s fo un d in Robert s’ ap ar tmen t. Sh e id en t ified t he m as t he sa me it ems defen dant had gi

ven her. De fen da nt als o ga ve a g o ld c ha in ne ck lac e t o his m oth e r. He opened the bag an

d “took o ut a bl

ack screen

moni to r” that was “l

ike
a compu ter” an d pu t i t on th e b ed . He

also took

out a l ap top computer in a case and a bag

f ul l of coi ns . Sh e h ad ne ve r s een a ny of these it ems in

hi s p oss es si on b ef ore th at date . Sh

e i denti f i ed the l ap top
an d t he du ffle b ag fr o m ph o t o gr ap hs s he wa s s ho wn by S an t ini. Acco rd ingto Norwo od, defend ant l ef t for a “coupl

e of m i nute s,” tak i n g th e c om pu ter s to the n

ex t-door nei ghbor’s to try

t o se ll t he m. He r eturned with the co mputer s, which he placed in his m ot her’s
room. Norwood an d def en da n t took a b usan d a trai n to a p aw n s hop in Forest Par k, wher e he pawn ed two ri ngs f or “about $70.”Then they went to a liquor store so t hat he co ul d con ve rt th e “ [c ]oi

n s i n to
money.” Defe

ndan t purchased a “s cratch out” l ot t er y ticke t and coll ected$50 0 in w inning s. T he y bo ug ht so me h er o in a nd so me “rocks” (cocain

e), ate t acos, and wa l ked to the Gran d Hotel , wh ere they checked i

nto a r oo m an

d remai ned for about eigh

t hou rs. The next morni

ng, August 1, 2003, t hey

went t o Ro berts’ house to sle ep

. T ha t ev en ing , de fen da nt ’s Un cle Ka ry ca me over wit h a-5- fri end. Defe ndan t brought o ut o ne of the c o mputer s t o s how t he fri end. No rw oo d t ur ned it on fo r hi m an d c li cked on t he “My Com puter” icon. A nam

e app ea r ed o n t he sc r ee n, “[ t ] he lad y name th at was on the new s, Catheri ne’s McKen –I don’t know.” T h e tel ev i si on was on a t t he t ime and

t he vic t im’s pict ur e wa s o n t he
screen wit h t he name “Ca t her ineMcKenz ie, so mething like t hat .” She
was “in a st at e o f shoc k” a nd t ur ned t he com

pu ter of f an d c l ose d i t. Defend ant t hen b rou gh

t o ut t he other computer to show the f rien d, who ended up b

uyi ng both computers i

n a “ package deal .” Laterthat nigh

t, she and de fen

dant were at her mother’s house when another news sto ry ab out the mu rd er came o n t he t elevision. She “ wa s h

ea ri n g th e w h ol e story ab out th e l ad y got slashed in the th roa t, som eth i n g l i ke th at. And it seem s to be that she stumb le d up
on the burglar.” No r wood’s mother glan ced at defen

dant and aske d him if he wo uld d o “s omet hingli ke that.” He to ld h

er t ha t he wo uld
n ot. A bi t l ater, N orwood

ask ed him aga in and

he sa id “he didn’ t want to t alk ab o ut it no w, ” b ut he ag r ee d t o t alk ab o ut it lat er at t he ho t el. They purchased m

ore drugs and w ent to another hotel, The Ri tz. She i den ti f i ed th e h otel f rom a p h oto graph. When t hey wer e in the
r o o m, she as ke d d efe nd an t “d id he do t hat to t hat la

dy.” He s ai d that “he didn ’t know if

he ki ll ed her, he s ai d he h

it her. A nd sh e fel l down
cause she wa lke d in on

hi m an d saw hi s face.” He to ld h er “it was a mistake. She walked i

n on me.” They

to ok so me drugs, whi

ch m ade him t ell he r“mo r e a bo ut it be ca us e h e w as jus t sa ying t ha t he hit he r, he didn’ t do al l

that other stuf

f to her.” A

f ter he start e d smo king crack, “he br o ke o ut cr ying a nd s t uff and he admit t hat he killed t he l ady .” He asked Norwood if sh e would tell on h

im and she said s he would not. August 22, 2003, was her bi rt hday. They were at his m ot her’s ap ar tmen t. She an d defen dant had an

argumen t t hat day over the way he was t re at ing her . S he t old him she want ed t o br eak up a nd he “startedgo in g o ff. ” She t old his mot her t hat she w as a fraid o f the defend ant “[b]eca

use he ki ll ed that lady. And I t ho ug ht he wo uld kill
me as wel l.” The i n ter v i ew con cl uded wi th Norwo od stat in

g that she had b een treat ed we l l b y th e p oli ce

de pa rtm en t, that n o threats or pr omi ses wer e made t o he r, and t hat she was f ree f rom the ef f ec ts of dru gsor alcohol

.-6- The victim’s br ot her ident ifi ed t he wa t ch and ey

egl asses that

were taken fro m Nor wo od and t he sungl asses found i n Roberts’ apa rt ment
as his siste r’s . T he St at e Po lice DNA a nalyst t est ifi ed a t t rial t hat she fou nd “a m ix ture” of DNA on the wa

t ch. One of the DNA prof il es was fem al e and was

consi stent with Norwood’s. The ot her profi le was male, but wasi

ns uf f i cien t for com parison. The p olice a lso s po ke by t elepho ne t o d efenda nt ’s unc le, Ka r y Pu gh, who to ld p olice t hat his friend, Ea rne st Ho skins, had t he victim ’s co mput er . At trial , Hoskins testifi ed that he and Pugh

vi si ted t he resi den ce of Pugh ’ssi ster-i

n-l aw, F an ny Robe rts, o n Au gust 1, 2003. The def

endan t, wh o is R o be r t s’ so n, wa s t he r e w it h his girl fri end, Roman

ette No rwoo d. Defen

dant showed

two c om pu ter s to Ho skins. The com

puterswere

in a bl ack canv as duf fl e bag. One

was a Son y Vai o l ap top a

nd the othe r wa s a “bi g, b l ac k”mod el

th at h e was not fam

il ia r with. Hoski

ns of fered to buy the c omp uters for $250, not expecti ng def endan t t o accept so low an o ffer bec aus e t he
com puterswere

worth m uch more. Def

endan t acce pted the off er. Wh en contacted by the pol

ic e, Hoskins expl

ai ned to the polic e that he no longer had the computer s in hi s po ss es sio n, bu t t ha t he co uld
re t rieve t he m. On Septem

ber 12, 20 03 , Ho sk ins t ur ne d o ve rt he du ffle bag c ont aining

the c omp uters to the

pol i ce. A ser vice number on t he Son y Vai o computer matched the v ictim ’s m is si ng com puter. When t he pol i ce turnedon t he Va io, a windo w ap pea re d sho wing t hat t he sof twarewas re gist er ed t o t he vict im. At t r ial, Ho skins ide nt ifi ed t he duff le bag an d the Sony Va

io computer and i

ts carryi ng case.

De f en da n t’s Sta tem en ts On Septembe

r 17, 2003, Oa

k Pa rk dete cti ve s took de f en da nt f rom t he Co ok Co unt y jail

t o t he Oa k P ar k po lice st at ion. Af ter he was read his Miranda right s and si

gne d a wa i ver, he wa s qu est ioned initially by detectives Wi ll ia m C ot ter and Juan Pal

adi nesan d lat er by Assista nt St ate ’s A ttor ney Sant ini. Defend ant made s ever al incriminating statem en ts. Acco rd ingto t h e d ete ct ives’ t est imony, de fendant said t hat he kic ked in the ba ck d oo r o f the victim’s ap ar t ment a nd entered. He unl ockedt he fro nt do or t o g ive himself a means o f e scape. He was in side, lookin

g at a laptop computer, when he heard the f

ront doo r-7- op en. He sa w a wo man st an din g t he r e, lo o kin g at him. Defend ant cl ai me d that Nor wood k n oc ked t he wo man to t he floo r a nd t hen he jum ped on h er u ppe r b ac k. H e g ot a knife fro m the kitche n an d began to cu t h er n eck b ec au se

h e f ea re d th at sh e c ou ld i

dentif y h im . He sawed on t he back of h

er neck an d, ac co r din g t o his s t at eme nt , he t o ld Norwood that because

they were in this to gether, she had to do so as we ll. He sta ted tha t sh e di d s o. Af

ter he washed

the knife i

n the si nk, he con ti n ue d to b urg l ari

zethe ap artm en t, tak i ng seve ral pai rs of glasses, some j ewel

ry, som e chan ge, and a l aptop. He then

went t o t he door of t he adj acent ap artm

en t, ki cked i n that door, and b

urglari zed th at a pa rtm en t. The det ect ives t hen c al le d Santin i, wh o also i nterviewed de f en da n t. Pal adi ne s s at i n on t hat inter view, dur ing

which de fendant ag ain ad mit t ed kill in

g t he vict im and des cr ibed t he bur glar y and
m urder. D ef

en da n t ag re ed to gi v e a v i de otap ed

sta tem en t. The tape and a

transcript were adm

itted in to evi dence at t rial and t he t ap e w as pla yed fo rt he jur y. I n t ha t st at eme nt , de fen da nt sa id that he got up e ar ly t he da y of t he mur der so t hat he co uld “go ou t and work, you know, do a sting, you know , do a l i ttle h ustle.”A sk

ed to
ex pla in what he m

eant, defen

dan t sa i d, “ W e’ l l go ou t f rom ti me to t ime and b

urglari ze.” He said t hat “abo ut 70 p er cent of t he t ime,” he and Nor wood wou l d c om m i t b urgl ar y togeth er . Sh

e w oul d g o to t he door of t he ho me or apa rt ment w hile he walke d t o t he co rne r. She
wo uld rin g the bel l to make sur e no one was at ho me. Defen dant also expl ai ned t hat he like d t o st ar t ea r ly

in t he da y, s o “yo u c an se e p eo ple goi ng to work , y

ouknow, you can s ee them le ave the h

ouse.” They did no t no rmally

we ar glo ve s, bu t wo uld put circles of tape on the tips of t he ir fin ge r s t o av o id

le avi ng f in gerprin ts. He claimed t hat he and Norwo od were wearin

g tape on their f

in gers the day

of the kill

in g. Wh en he got to the back

do or s at 936 Washingt on B ou levard , he
co uld he ar Norwood “ stil l ri ngi ng th e b el l ,” so he kn

ew therewas no one at home. He then

“donkey kicked” one of the doo rs, with h is back to the door so that his h

eel w as highe r t han his t oe s. T he do or gave way on the second kick. He we nt t hr ou gh t he fro nt do or of t he apa rt ment and down

th e s ta irs t o let No rwo o d in sid e. On ce ba ck in t he ap ar t ment , h e le ft t he fr ont d oor unl ocked as a m

eans of quic k
esc ape i f i t bec am e nece ssa ry

. He went d

i rectl y to t he be droom, b eca

use “that’swh eret he-8- j ewel ry w a s a t

. ” D efe nd an t st at ed t ha t he r an sa ck ed t he be dr o o m, t aking a Gucci

watch and stash

in g sev er al pair s o f eyeglasse s in a du ffle bag he fou nd t her e. Sant ini showed def

endan t a photo graph

of t he bl ack bag recovered f

rom Hoskin

s and def endan t identifi ed i t as the sam e bag. In the li vi ng room, he f

ound two wall et s. He to ok $18 5 in cash f rom o ne an d s ev er al c r ed it ca r ds fr o m t he o t he r

. Sa nt ini sh o we d h im pho t og ra phs of

two wal l ets fou nd in t he vict im’s apar t ment a nd he acknowl edged

t hat he had op ene d them a n d t ak en ca sh a nd cr ed it cards. Defend ant said t hat he then n ot ic ed a t ab le w it h a co mpu t er o n it
and, on the fl

oor nex t t o t he tabl

e, a laptop in

a computer case. He ide ntif ie d a photogr aph

of the tab l e an

d poi nted out whe re the l ap top had been s itt ing o n t he floo r. He s aid t hat he “ got dow n on a k n ee to unzi p” the computer

cas e and was “clos ingit and zippi ng i t up” when t he victim returned through the front door. She was “about f i v e f eet” away from hi m a nd waslookin

g directl y a t hi m. Def endan t said that they “stared at each other for al most–i t couldn’t hav

e been no m ore than l ike three or four seconds but it seem ed like an eterni ty.” Acco rd ingto de f

en da nt, Norwood

hit t he vic t im

fro m behind and knocked her to t he f

loor. She fel

l “face first . And t hat gave me

enough ti me to r eact. ” B ec au se

h e k n ew th at th e v i cti m wou l d b e a b l e to ide nt ify him, he jumped on he r se ver al times, slammi ng his kne e o n t he back of h er neck b etween h

er sh oul der b l ades . H e believe d t hat she
was unconsci

ous, but kn ew t ha t she wa s s t ill aliv e. Defen dant said that he to ld Norwood, “she done al ready rec ogniz ed

m e, s o you kn

ow what we got to do.” Defend ant went i

nto t he ki tchen an d gr ab be d a kn i f e f rom a k nife hol der. Santin

i s howed hi m a

photo graph of the kn

if e hol der, whi ch he recogniz ed. He expl

ai ned that he sl

ashed, st abbed , a nd sa wed at t he victim ’s t hro at . D et ect ivePalad ines bent over t he table, f ace down, so that de f en da n t cou l d dem on strate how he us ed t he kn ife o n t he vic t im. Defend ant stat ed that while the vi ctim was co ming out o f h er in it ia l unconsci ousness, sh

e was m aki ng a “gargli

ng” sound. He cl ai me d that at t his po int , he t o ld N o rwo o d t ha t t he y we r e “ in t his together” and that Nor wood had to prove her “so lidarit y.” Acc or ding to hi m, Norwood put her han d o n t he k nife ha nd le a nd “d id lik e a lit t le-9- saw ingmotion.” D efen

dant wiped t he knife o n t he bac k o f the vic t im’s shir t , t he n t o o k it ba ck t o t he kit ch en wh er e h e r inse d it o ff, wipe d it of f to erase any

pal m pri nts, and l eft i t in the ki tchen si nk. Sant ini sho wed him a phot og ra ph o f the knife as it was fou nd in the kit chen s ink. D efenda nt sa id, “T ha t ’s t he kn ife * ** in the s i nk w here I l ef t it.” Defend ant stated t hat

he t he n c o llec t ed t he du ffle b ag , so me CDs,
so me DVDs, and the l

aptop and went out t he bac k do or , w her e he kic ked i n th e door to an

othe r ap artm en t an d b urg l ari ze d i t. He took
a com pu ter an d s om e ri n gs . H e f oun d a l arge gl as s j ar f i l l ed wi th chan ge, wh i ch wa s to o h ea

v y to ca rry. He c ou ld no t explain ho w t he Cleveland Browns b ot t le go t fro m Callahan’s ap ar t ment t o t he victim ’s ap ar

tmen t. H e th oug h t th at “ may b e R om an ette broug ht i t.” Defend ant an

d N orw ood wen

t “st raigh t o ut t he f ront do or.” He stated that nei

ther he nor Norwo od had any

bl ood o n them . He carried t he bl ack duff le bag and sh e was carry

in g another bag. They

returned to the ap artm en t the y sh are d w i th h i s m othe r to drop o ff

so me of t he st o len pr o pe r t y. He h ad n ot told N orw ood a

b out th e n ea rl y $2 00 i n ca sh th at h e had taken and h

e di d not want her to know. Later that day, they so ld two stolen ri

ngsat a pa wn sho p fo r $ 50 o r $ 60 a nd he ga ve Norwood
so me o f t he mo ne y. At a nea rby liquo r st or e, he exc hange d t he st olen c oins for about $55 in bi ll s and purch

ased some l iquor and a

scra tch -of f l otter y ti cket. The t icket was a winner and he co llecte d ano t her $50 0 in cas h. He and Norw oo d bought “a couple bl

ows and then we

got some rocks an d
so me wee d, ” r efer ring to heroin, cocaine , and mar ijuana. The y spent
sev eral hours in amo t el, “ha d s ex , go t hig h, ” b efo r e r et ur ning t o his
moth er ’s ap ar tmen t. Defend ant trie d, un suc ces sf ul l y , t o se ll the

com pute rs to a nei ghbor. A day

or t wo later, hi s uncl

e cam e over t o ha ve defend ant cut his hair. The uncle br ou ght a fri end wi th hi m. Def endan t identifi ed
a photo graph

of Hoski ns, whom he kn ew as “Bishop,” as that friend. His un cle wa s no t in

tere sted in

the computers, so defen

dant off ered t he So ny V aio t o Ho sk ins fo r$5 00

. I nit ia l ly Hos ki ns wa s n ot in teres ted, but t hen he o ffered defend ant $30 0, which de fendant accepted. He and N or wo od t oo k t he mone y a nd “ le ft agai

n af ter t hat-10- and ch ecke d i nto an other m otel.” At the c onclusi on of the taped in terview, def

endan t was asked how he h ad been treat ed whi

le at the Oak Park polic e station. He repli ed, “I bee n treated just.” He acknowledged that he had been giv en f ood an d s om eth i n g to dr ink and th at h

e w as gi v en ci ga re ttes to
smo ke. Overal

l, h e said, “I been

treat ed j ustice. It was al

most like a bi g bu rden , you know , be i

ng l i f ted f rom m y soul .”

Trial W i th t he e xce pt io n o f N orwoo d’s v ide ot aped statemen

t, which
was ad mit t ed o nly

at t he se nt en cin g p ha se , all of the f acts sum ma rized ab ove c am

e i nto ev i den ce a t trial

. In addi ti on , a de pu ty med ica l ex amine rt es t ified t ha t t he vic t im had been sta b b ed un der the ch i

n an d on th e ri gh t s ide o f he rne ck

. T his
wo und se ve r ed he rca r o t id a r t er y. S he als o ha d a ga pin g in cis io n wo und on the back of

her nec k, co nsist ent wit h a sa wing mo t ion, whi ch was so deep thati t fractured two cervi cal vertebrae. An

ot her cervi cal ver t ebr a, t wo t hor acic ve rt ebr ae, and 13 ribs were al so fractured. The knife fro m the sink co uld h av e c au se d th

e w oun dsto her neck. The v

ictim al so had dozens of

in juri es to her face, including
a l ac erati on an d b ru i se of h er upper ri

gh t ey el i d, p ete ch ia l hem orrhages of he r r ight eye, and a bra sions on her right cheek. Her li ps were l acerated in sever al place s and she ha d abr asio ns o n t he br id ge of he r no se. She a lso ha d se ver al hemor rha ges t o he r br ain,
co nsist ent with blun

t force trauma. The f

ractures wer e co nsist ent wi th
a ma n of def endan t’s si ze jum pin g on the vi ctim ’s spi ne. These in juri es wo uld have r ende re d t he v ictim par apleg ic fro m the c hest do wn. Other lacerations, bruise s, and ab rasi ons were consistent with an
as sa ul t. A st ab wo un d o n t he vic t im ’s h and wa s consi stent with h er t ryingto ward

off the a ttack. In t he medica l examiner’s o pinion, t he
cause of death was m

ulti ple in juri es f rom an assau lt; the

man ne r of death was hom

ic ide

. Af ter the Stat e rested its case, the def ense rested without pr ese nt ingevi

dence. Cl

osin g argumen

ts wer e m

ade a nd jury instr uct ions were giv

en. The j ury f

ound defen

dant guil ty be yond a
r ea so na ble doubt o f f

irst degree m

urder, home in

vas ion, and
r es id en t ial b ur gl ar y.-11- AN AL YSIS I. Po tential Juror Excused for Cau se Dur ing voir dire , ve

ni re membe rC. B. t o ld

the court that she had
never been an accused, a compl

ai nan t, o r a witnes s i

n a cri mi nal case. The pr ose cu

tor m ov ed to ex cu se h er f or c au se b ec au se h er “ra p sh eet” showed that she had b een ch

arged with m

is dem eanor battery i

n 1991. The ba ttery charge was “ SOL’ d,” or s tri cken wi th l ea v e to rein state. Defens e co unse l object ed a nd requestedthat t he court question C.B. in ch am b er s to determi

ne wh ether she ha d simply forg ot t en abo ut t he in ci dent that occurr ed 16 y

ears ago, if

she thought that the dism is sal meant t hat she had n

ot been “a cc us ed ” o f a c r ime, o rif she ha d s o me ot her re as on f or n ot m en ti oni n g i t. The trial

court deni

ed the request and excu se d C.B . f

or caus e. Def

endan t argues that the tria l court abused i ts d i scre ti on an d th at, as a res ul t, he is e n ti tl ed to a ne w t r ial. Voir dir e in c r iminal c as es is g o ve rne d b y Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 431 (177 Il

l . 2d R. 43 1) . Pr

i or to the a

dopti on of

thi s rul e, this court he ld that the tria l court be ars pri

mary re sp on si b i l i ty for co nduc t ing t he
v oir dire exam

in ation an d, thus, the man

ner and s cope of that
exam i na ti on rests wit hin the d

i scre tion of that court. People v. Williams , 164 Ill . 2d 1, 16 (1994). See People v. Garstecki , 23 4 I ll. 2d 430, 437- 38 ( 200 9) ( ex pl ai ni ng si gn i f i ca nc e of rep l ac em

en t of Supreme Court

Ru le 2 34 wit h S up r eme Co ur t Ru le 4 31 )

. Un de rt his rule, t he trial

court ’s di scretion is guided by a preferen

ce f o r per mitt ing

di r ec t inq ui ry o f p r o sp ec t ive jur o r s b y t he at t o rne ys if such
an opportuni

ty i s soug ht. Garstecki , 234 Il

l . 2d at 44 4-45. The present case, howeve r, does not in volv e a request by

an attorn ey to su bm i t que sti ons f orvoir dire o rt o dir ec t ly

que st ion t he
ven ire. Rat her , t he present case i nvol ves the tri al

cou rt’ s dec i si on to gr ant t he St ate ’s request to excuse a prospective j uror for cause after voir dire has been

concluded. “An ab

use of the cou rt’ s d i screti on will be fo un d o nly

if , after a review of the record, it is determi ned t hat t he conduct of the court thwarted the se l ection of an i m partial j ury .” Williams , 16 4 I l l . 2d

at 1 6. D ef

en da n t argue s that despite the trial
cou rt ’s dis c retion i

n thi s m atter , the “proper procedure” call s f or an i nqu i ry if i t com es to the attention of the trial court , either wh

il e voir dire is inprogress or when i t has j ust been com

ple ted, t hat there are f acts contradictin

g an answer gi

ven durin g voir dire . He argues further that wh en f ail ure to ade quatel

y question a v en i re membe ris bro ught-12- to the trial

co ur t ’s at t en t io n in

a t imely ma nne r , t he pr o pe rr eme dy is
a new tri al . Def

endan t reli es on two decisions of

the a ppel l ate court for these pro positions. In People v. Green , 2 82 I ll. App. 3d 5 10 ( 199 6) , t he co ur t fou nd
an abuse of dis cretion whe

re the trial court refuse d to reopen voir dire to reex am i ne three veni re persons whose j ury cards in dic ated that t hey had been victim s of cri me s, but wh o fail ed to so state i n open c ourt when the mem be rs of the v en i re were ask

ed th e que sti on. Green , 282 I ll. App. 3d at 514. Because the def ense h ad use d it s nine perem

ptory chal le ngest o e xcus e o t her venire membe r s, t he t hr ee ind ividua ls in qu es t io n w er e s ea t ed o n t he jury. Green , 28 2 I ll. App. 3d at513 . As
a re su l t, the def en da n t, w h o wa s ch arge d w i

th attempted murder

and ot her cri mesi n c onn ec ti on wi th a s ho o t ing , may h av e b ee n t r ied by a j ury that i nc l uded mem bers wh o ha d b een v i cti m s of one ormore of the same cri

mes. Green , 282 Ill . App. 3d at 514. The appe l l ate court noted th at a

“lim ited inquiry wo uld have sa t isfied t he p ur po se o f voir dire to expose potential

bias or prejudi

ce, wo uld ha ve r es ult ed in o nly
a mi nor delay in jury selection an

d would ha

ve resol ved the issue as to whether [the three ind ividua ls] we r e in fac t cr ime vic t ims, as we ll
as the eff ect such i nvol vem ent would have h

ad on thei r a bili t y to be i m partial .” Green , 282 Ill . App. 3d at 514, citin g People v. Mitchell, 121 Il l . Ap p. 3d 19 3 (198 4). Defend ant also rel

i eson Mitchell , i

n wh i ch th e a pp el l ate court reversed t he de fendant ’s co nvictio n for bur glar y on t he basis thatt he trial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion by denying a defe

nse m ot ion to reopen voir dire as to one

of the j urors. Mitchel l , 121 Ill . App. 3d at 196. Dur ing voir dire , the juror sai d that he had nev er bee n t he v ict im of a
cr ime. He was acc ept ed a s a jur or and sworn bef ore defens e counsel le arned that t he prosecutor hadback gr ou nd infor matio n re gar ding t he
veni re mem bers. This d oc ument re vealed t hat t he jur or had be en a victim o f a bur glar y, t he sa me crime fo r w hich the defend ant wa s on t r ial. Mitchell, 12 1 I ll. A

pp. 3d a t 194 . Th e c ourt rel i ed on this cour t’s de ci si on in People v. Kurth , 34 Ill . 2d 387 (1966), o verruled on ot her grounds in

People v. Beards le

y , 115 Il

l. 2d 47 ( 198 6) , fo r t he prop osi ti on that “where i nf

orm ation sh

owing prejudic e or po tential prejudi ce of a sea t ed jur or is bro ught t o t he at t ent ion o f the co urt dur ingo rimmed iat ely

af ter voir dire , t he pr op er pr oc edu re wo uld be further in quiry by the court .” Mitchell, 121 Ill . App. 3d at 1 94. The-13- courtco nclude d, furt her , t hat “issues involvingth e ri gh t to a fai r trial by a panel of

im part ial jurors cannot be disposed o f b y the harm

less
err orru le” and , t hus, re ver sal o f the defend ant’s convi ction was
ne ces sary

. Mitchell, 121 Ill . App. 3d at 196. Nei ther Green nor Mitche ll o ff er any suppo rt for defendant ’s pos i ti on be caus e b oth cas es i

nv olv ed th e se ati

ng of a j uror or j urors who we r e p o t en t ially

biased aga inst t he de fendant . I n t he present case, no pot entia

ll y biased j uror was seated. Instead, a po tential juror was
ex cus ed f or caus e ove

r a def en se ob j ecti on. Williams is f

actual l y si m i l ar to the pre sent c as e. B oth on

the j uror info rmat io ncar d and duri ng vior dire , a

prosp ecti v e j uror f ai l ed to discl ose t hat she w as t hen und er co ur t sup er vision “for a marijuana
cas e.” Williams , 164 Il

l . 2d at 1 5. T h e S tate asked that she b e excuse d for cau se a nd t he de fendant re que st ed t hat she be questioned further abo ut t he marijuana case. Williams , 164 Il l . 2d at 16 . The

tria l court excused her for cause and th e de fendant was subs equ ent ly f ou nd gui l ty of f irst degreemurder

for st ra ngling a 97 -year -o ld wo man and of r o bbe ry f

or steali ng the v ictim ’s stereo set. The defen dant was
sen tenc ed to death

. On appe al to t his co ur t , t he de fendant ar gue d t hat t he tria l court fai le d t o pr o pe r ly

e xer cise it s discr et ion whe n it exc use d t he pr os pec t ivejuror for cause. Thi s court not ed t hat t he “ pu rp o se o f voir dire i s to a ss

ure the se l ec ti on of

an i m pa rti al pa ne l of jurors f ree f rom ei ther bia s o r pr eju di ce ” a nd co nc lu de d t ha t t he r ec o r d “ in n o wa y” suggested that ex cu sing t his i

nd i vi dua l f or ca us e i m pe de d the s el

ec ti on of an unbi ase d an

d i m partial j ury

. Williams , 164 Ill . 2d at 16-17. Furth er, th e “ v erac i ty o f t ho se who t es t ify

durin g voir dire is

a m atter lyi ng solel y w ithi n the sound discretion of the c ircui t cour t, an d t he de ci si on to excuse a potential

juror becaus e of a reasonable bel ie f that that person has been untruthful un der o ath is a

qu es t io n be st left wi

th that cour t.” Williams , 164 Il l . 2d at 17

. Defend ant at t emp t s t o dis t ingu ish t he fa ct s o f Williams , a rg uing t hat while the re was “no c hance ” t hat t he pot entia l juro r in Williams
was mi staken about her cri

m i na l record b eca

use she was und er court
su pe rvi si on at the ti me of t r ial, it is lik ely t ha t C. B. eit he rfo r go t o rdid not understand that she h

ad an arrest rec or d da t ing back 16 years. Thus, he ar gu es , t he t r ia l c ourt ’s concl usi on that she was un

trut hf ul ratherthan m

erely mi staken was n

ot “reasonable ,” as re quir ed byt his-14- co ur t in Williams

. We do n ot f

i n d th e tr i al cou rt’ s a ss es sm

en t of C. B. ’s v erac i ty to be unr eas onab l e. We are

readi ng th e re cord and, t hus, ar e no t in a pos i ti on to as se ss th e credi

bi li ty an d dem eanor of C.B. Instead, we
mu st r ely o n the trial court ’s superior abil ity to make these
assessm ents. See People v. Harri s , 225 Il l . 2d 1, 38 -39 (20 07), quo t ing Wainw

right v. W

itt , 469 U .S. 412, 4 26, 83 L . E d . 2d 841, 853, 10 5 S . C t. 844, 853 (1985) (“deferen ce m ust be paid to the trial j udge who sees and he ars th

e j uror”). In add itio n, we note that when asked duri ng voir dire whet her t he
re ce nt murder of h

er nephe w would af

fect he r abi li ty to be an im partial juror, C.B. answered “ ye s.” Thi s m

ay have been, as defend ant suggests, an i

nadvertent mi sstatemen

t, bec ause sh

e l ater
sa id that she would b e abl

e to follow t he l aw. Ho we ve r , “ ‘[ i]t is pr ec ise ly in situations such as this , wh ere th e c ol d r ec ord

su gg ests an app ar ent contrad

i cti on, th at w e defer t o t he circuit co urt ’s di scre tion .’ ” Harri

s , 225 Ill . 2d at 38, quo t ingPeople v. Shaw, 186 Il l . 2d 301 , 317 (1 998).

II. Ot her-Cri

me s Evi dence Pri orto tri al , th e Sta

te f i l ed a m oti on to us e p roof

an d e vi denc e of ot her crim es, specifi

cally li mi ted to evi

dence of the bur g l ary

of Callahan’s ap ar t men t

. Alt ho ug h d efe nd an t wa s no t ch ar ge d w it h t his bu r gl ar y, it o ccu rr ed in t he sa me buildingo n t he sa me day as t he
m urder. Pro pert y taken from Callahan ’s apartment wasfou nd in t he victim ’s apa rt ment a nd

a ciga re t t e but t co nt aining defen dant’s DNA
was f oun d i n Ca l l ah an ’s ap ar tmen t. Th us , the S tate

argued, evi

dence of the unch arged burglary was rel evan t t o t he m

urder charge. Th e Sta te ex pre ss ed i ts i nte nt n ot to d elve i

nto any ot her resi

dentia l bu r gla ries t hat defend ant was char ged wit h or sus pec t ed o f or any procee ds thereof

. The motion wasal l owed. Defend ant fil

ed a mot ion in limine , se ek ing t o ha ve po r t io ns o f his vi de ot aped statement redacted, speci fi cally , any me ntion of ot her crim es he may have c ommitt ed a nd his ge ner al explana t ion o f the
meth od or pro cedure he f

ollo wed when c ommitt ing bur glar ies. T he Sta te responded t ha t his sta tem en t con tai ne d a f ul l rec ol l ec ti on of wh at he did on the day of the murder and, thus, an y re da ct io n w o uld-15- le ad to ga psi n th e n ar ra ti v e. The tr i al cou rt d en i ed th e m oti on, but directed that no co mm

ent o r arg ument be made regar ding defendant’s ot her crim es. The prosecutor r esponded thathe had “no i nte nti on” of mentio ning

any of d efenda nt ’s o t he r crim es and that the “other pend ingresi dentia

l b urglary chargeswill a bso lut ely

not co me in in the St ate ’s case i

n ch ie f.” Fur t her , t he “po lice officer s t est ify ing will be di rected not to talk

ab out the other charges , other cases .” In hi s postt rial

motion, def

endan t argued t ha t ev ide nc e o f his
com m i ss i on o f o t he rcr imes wa s imp r o pe r ly admit t ed. A hear ingwas he ld on h i s m oti on an d th e m oti on wa s den i ed . D ef en da n t ar gu es to t his court that evi dence

o f h is comm is si on of other crim

es was im pro perly admi tt ed in two instances. Thus, he argu es, he is entitled t o a n ew t r ial. Evidence that a defen

dant has com

mi tt ed crim es other than

t he
one f or wh i ch he i s on tri al may not b e adm

i tted f or th e p urp ose

of demo nst ra t ingh i s prop ensi ty to com m i t cri mes. People v. Illgen , 145 I ll. 2d 353 , 364 (1 991). Su ch evi den ce, h owev er, may bead

m i tted f or a proper purpo se such

as provi ng modus operandi , int en t , id en t it y, motiv e, or abs ence of

m i stake

. Illgen , 14 5 I ll. 2 d a t 36 4- 65

. E ve n if
re levant t o a pur po se o t her t han sho wi n g th e m ere p rop ensi

ty to
co mmit cr ime, ev id en ce o f o t he rcr imes may be ex cl uded i f i ts pr oba t iveval

ue i s outweighed b

y i ts prejudi ci al ef f ect. Illgen , 145 I ll. 2d at 36 5. T he ad miss ibilit y o f ev ide nc e a t t r ial is a mat t er wit hin the
so und discr et ion o f the t rial co ur t and t hat co ur t ’s de cision w ill not be overturned absen

t a clear ab

use of that

di scre tion

. Illgen , 145 Ill . 2d at 364. Erro neous adm

is si on of other-crim

es evi dence ca lls f

or reversal only if the ev

i denc e w as“ a m

aterial f ac torin the defendant’s
con vi cti on such that, wi

thout the evi

dence, the verdict l

ike l y wo uld have been dif feren t.” People

v. Hall , 194 Il

l . 2d 305 , 339 (2 000).

A. Detective’s Testimony At trial , Detective Willia m C ot ter o f the Oak Park pol ic e de pa rtm ent te st ifi ed t hat he and Det ect ive Wil liam Ball ar d br ou ght defend ant to the police station f or questionin

g. Af ter pro cessi

ng, including t he co llectio n of a bucc al swa b for DNA c omp ar ison, defend ant was placed i

n an in terview room, where he was in terviewe d b y Cott er and Detectiv

e Juan Pal

adi nes. The f

oll owing e xchang e-16- occurred: “Pr

osecu tor: Did e ither y

ou or Detective Jua

n Pal adi nes i n trod uc e y our se l v es to th e D ef

en da n t? Cot ter: Yes, we bot h i

ntro duced o urselves. P r o se cu t o r : Ho w d id

yo u d o t ha t ? Wh at di d yo u s ay? Cotter: Jus t t hat my name, Det ect iveCo t t er wit h t he Oak Park Pol i ce De pa rtm en t. Det ect ivePalad ines wa s ac t ually the l ead i nv esti gator. He i

ntroduc ed h

i m sel f al so.” The Stat e’s n

ext wi tness was Detecti

ve Pal adi nes, wh o t estif ie d that he wa s th e l ead de tec ti ve i n th e i nv es ti ga ti on of th e m urder of Cat her ineMcA

v i n ch ey. Pa l ad i n es te stifi ed that he saw other detectives bri ng def en d an t int o t he De t ec t ive Bu r ea u. He as ke d h is i m med i ate su pe r io r“if w e c o uld pu t Ro dn ey int he ba ck fo ra lit t le b it to let him co ol d ow n.” Having obtaine d permission to do so, he placed defend ant in a holding ce ll. E ve nt ua lly, Palad ines esc or t ed d efenda nt f rom t he ho lding cell t o a n inter view r oo m. The fol lowi ng exchan

ge occurred:

“ Pro se cu

tor: A l l ri gh t. Did y ou introduce yoursel

f at that ti me to th e D ef en da n t? Paladi nes: I in tro duced myse lf init ially

when Rodney

fi rst came in. Pr o se cu t o r: Ho w d id yo u int ro du ce you rs elf? Paladi nes: I sai d, ‘Hi , Rodney. How y ou doing. I haven’t
see n y ou i n a l ong ti me.’ Prosecuto r: Did y

ou t ell h im who y ou were? Paladi nes: Yes. Pr o se cu t o r : D id yo u t ell him– Defens e Co unse l: Object ion. COURT: Sustain

ed. Prosecuto r: Did y

ou t ell h im who y ou were? Pal adi ne s: Ye s.” In hi s postt rial

mot ion, defend ant ar gue d t hat t he prosecuto r acted int en t io na ll

y t o elic it info rmat io n fr o m wh ich t he jur y wo uld
un der st and tha

t the de tec ti ve knew the de f en da nt f rom pas t
encoun ters and i nf er that he was “a

cr im inal.” At t he hea ring o n t he-17- moti on, t he pr os ecu t or explained t hat she di d n ot int en d t o elic it prejudi ci al informat ion by ask ing t he que st ion. She di d n ot an ti ci pa te that t he de t ec t ive wo uld an sw er in thi s m an ner. Her pur po se in ask ing t he qu est ion wa s t o d emons t ra t e t o t he jur y that t he defend ant knew to who m hewa s s

pe ak i ng . The tri

al cou rt f oun d th i s exp l an ati on credible

. In t his a pp ea l, de f

en da n t ar gu es th at th e q ue sti on wa s a de l i b erate and successf

ul at t emp t t o int r o du ce pr eju di cia l info rmat io n t o t he jury. He asserts that the question was des ign ed to el ic it a response that reveal ed defend ant was kno wn t o t he po lice and, by im plicat ion, that he wasa pri

or off ender. Defe

ndan t also argues that

t he o nly quest ions that suc h an ans wer mightha ve be en r ele va nt t o –h is mot ive and int ent to co mmit bur glar y–wer e no t in disput e bec aus e t he defen se strategy
was t o ad mit t he bu r gl ar y w hi le de nying t he mur de r

. T hu s, t he o nly purpo se served

by t h e q

ue sti on an d a n sw er wa s to demon str

ate defendan t’s pro pensi

ty to commi

t crimes. As a

resul t, t he prej udic ia

l nature of the statemen

t necessari

ly out weighed i

ts relev ance. Th e Sta te res pon dsth at th

e p ros ecutor ’s

qu esti on wa s n ot a de l i b erate atte m pt to elic it i

nf ormation ab out ot her cr imes and t hat t he det ect ive’s

answ er t o t he qu esti on

wa s u n ex pe cte d. F ur th er , the S tate argues that any

error was cure d because the trial court sustain

ed defense counsel ’s obj ection f

oll owing tha t answer and l ater in structed t he jury t o “d isreg ar d qu est ions a nd ex hi bi ts wh i ch are wi thd raw n or to which o bject ions w er e su st ained. ” Finally, the Sta te ar gue s t hat any s ucherro r w as no t a fact or in defenda nt ’s co nvictio ns, g iven the
ov er wh el m i n g ev i den ce

of gui l t. Defend ant repl

i es th at th e error wa s n ot c ure d b y su st ain ing his obj ec ti on or by the jur y instr uct ion bec aus e t he j ury wo uld no t have know n w hi ch question and answe

r i t was to di sreg ard. In People v. Bryant , 11 3 I ll. 2d 497 (1 986), th

i s court considered
a si m i l ar si tua ti on , a f ter h av i n g g ra n ted th e de f en da nt a ne w tri al on ot her gr o und s. Th e d efe ndant was cha rged with the attempted bur glary of a ser vic e stati on. Bryant , 113 Ill . 2d at 500. A polic e off ic er tes ti f i ed tha t he wa s s en t to the l oca ti on i n r es pon se to a ca ll f rom a nei ghbor. He saw

the d efenda nt ru nning awa y from t he buildingand calle d for hi

m to stop. The def

endan t continued

ru nning and jump ed a fe nce . T he o ffi cer shout ed a t him again and t he def enda nt then stopped and returned to t he station, where he wa s-18- place d un der ar rest. Bryant , 113 Il

l . 2d at 50 0-01. Oncross-exam

in ation, i t was revealed that the offi cer calle d th e defend ant by name when t he off ic er said “I told hi

m to freeze. He

kept
on go ing. I called him by name andI t o ld h im I would sh oot .” Bryant , 113 Ill . 2d at 514. Al

though the off

ic er’s use of

defen dant’s n am e was ina dv er t en t ly

elicited on c ro ss- examinat ion, the prosecuto r made use of t his fact t wice d ur ing clos ingargum en t. Bryant , 113 Ill . 2dat 514. The record did n

ot reveal how t he officer happ ened t o k now t he defendant’s nam

e, butt his co ur t not ed t he implicatio n t hat might ha ve been “conv ey ed by testim ony of this nature” and i

ns tructed tha t, on
r et r ial, such a s

tatement by

the off ic er would be “

better av oided , unless som

ehow rele van t.” Bryant , 113 Il

l . 2d at 51 4. S imila r ly, in People v. Stover , 89 I ll. 2d 1 89 ( 198 2) , t he de fendant
was gran ted a n ew trial on oth er groun ds . H e w as

ch arge d w i th
re sist ingor o bstructing a p eac e o ffi

cer . P olice o ffi

cer s we nt t o t he defendant’s apart men

t t o arr est him . They ann ounced t hei

r purpo se and the defe

ndan t ran to the rear of the apartmen t. An off ic er pursued him and attempted

t o p lace him in handcu ffs. A scu ffl e ens ued and t he off i cer eventual l

y sub dued the def endan t. Stover , 89 Il

l . 2d at 19 2. At t r ial, the off

ic er testifi ed that on the day of

the arrest, he was
we ari n g h i s u n i f orm , of f i ci al h at, and depu ty sheriff

’s badge. He was also wea ring a n equ ipment belt t hat co nt ained a holst er and w eap on, handcuf fs, and ni ghtstick. Stover , 89 Ill . 2dat 19 2. T his po rt ion o f the
o ffic er’ s t est imony was r elevant t o t he kno wledg e element of t he offense charged

. Stover , 89 Il l . 2d at 19 6. Howev

er, aft er elic it ing t his t es t imo ny, the prosecuto r asked the off i cer whether he

had b een acquai nted wit h t he de fend an

t prior to this

in ci dent and the off

ic er answered, “Yes.” Stover , 89 Il l . 2d at 1 92- 93. Th e op i

ni on doe s n ot i ndi cate w hether there w as a

n ob j ection to thi s que sti on. On ap pe al, def

endan t argued t hat the question an d answer impr o pe r ly

provided a

basis f or t he j ury to in

fer that he ha d p r ev io us ly engaged i n cri minal condu ct. This cour t no ted that the de fendant’s knowle dge that the person at hi s door was a uniform ed poli ce off ic er seekin g to arrest hi

m h ad al ready be en cle ar ly es t ab lishe d b efo r e t his que sti on was asked. Stover , 89 I ll. 2d a t 196 . B eca use t her e wa s “no app ar ent reas on wh

y the prosecu

tor wou ld i

nquire into de fendant’s previous acq uaint ance wit h [t he offi cer] unlessan

i m pl i ca ti on of pri or-19- crim in al activ ity was i ntended, ” thi s court directed that su ch i nqu i ry not recu r on retri al

. Stover , 89 Il

l . 2d at 19 6. Defend ant ar gu es t ha t t he se t wo ca se s s ho uld le ad us to co ncl ude that he i s e ntitl ed t o a new t rial on the basis of the pr osec ut or ’s que sti on and Detectiv

e Pal adi nes’ s ans wer. Whi le we acknowledge that the a nswer c ont ai

ne d i nf orma tion f rom w hi ch a rea sona

bl e j ury mightin fer that def

endan t had a crim

in al record, we do n

ot fi nd ei ther
case persua si

ve. In b ot h cases , the defen dants had al

ready b een granted a new tria

l on un related grounds. Our di scussi on of thi s i ssue was dicta , i

nte nd ed onl y to gui dethe tri al cou rt an d the Sta te on
r et r ial. W e d

i d n ot s ug ge st th

at a n y such er ror was suf f i ci en t to requi re a new tria

l. In a ddition, the prosecuto r’s conduct in each case
was a delib erate att em

pt to cal l attenti on to th e def en da n t’s f am i l i ari ty wi th t he po lice

. I n t he pr es en t ca se , t he t r ial court f ou nd t he pro secut or ’s ex

pl an ati on cr edible. We no t e t hat she as ke d e ss en t ially t he sam e question of

both Cott er and Pal

adi nesf or th e s ame pur pos e– to d em on strate th at th e def en da n t kn ew th at p er son

s to wh om he was s peaki ng, nei ther of whom

were in uniform , were police detect iv es. The defense

theor y of the case

was t hat defend ant co mmi t t ed t he t wo burglaries

at 936 Washi

ngton Boulev

ard on Jul y 31, 2003, bu t that he left wit h t h e s to le n property bef

ore Catherine

McAv in chey
re turnedhom

e an d was kil l ed b y an unk nown pers on. Th

i s the ory ac co un t ed fo rall of the phy si cal evi dence that

i m pl i ca ted de f en da n t. In effect , t he de fense t heo ry was t hat defend ant was an e xperien ced bur glar , w ho w as c ar eful t o a sce rt ain tha t no o ne wa s pr ese nt at any ho me or a partment he e

ntered and that he h

ad fol lowed h is usual pattern on the day of the m urder. I n ad di ti on , c ounse l

atte m pte d to port ray defen dant’s i ncri mi natin g statemen

t s t o t he po lice as t he pr oduct o f f

ea r or m an i pul ati on , i n an ef f ort to p er suade th

e j ur y to di sreg ard them. He s

ugg e st ed , fo r e xamp le, t hat t he la ck o f a vi deotape of def

endan t’s arriv al at the Oak P a rk po lice dep ar t ment
m i ght i ndi cate that he

wasm i streated by the tran sporti ng of f i cers

. Defens e counsel’s cros s-e xaminatio n of Co t t er bega n wit h t he que st ion: “ Th at d ay

[Se pte m be r 17 , 20 03] , y

ouwent and got Rodney Adkins fro m the Co ok Co unt y Jail where he was stay in g on another
matter, isn’t

t ha t ri gh t? ” T h e p ros ecutor

aske d f or a si de b ar to note t hat defens e co unse l was “elicit ingfrom our wit ne ss t he fac t t ha t his-20- client was in

jai l on an un

related matter .” During this crossexam ina t io n, counsel

me ntioned the

fact that defen

dant was taken f rom t he Co o k C o un t y jail to be ques tion ed reg ardi ng th e Oak Park murder at least seve n m

ore tim es. Th us, the j ury

wasal ready awar e that defend ant was f

am il ia r to la w enf orcemen t before Paladi

nes ev er took t he st an d a nd t ha t aw ar en es s w as pr o du ce d b y t he defen se st ra t egy, not by the p ro sec ut ion. Giv en thi s l i ne of que sti oni ng of C ot ter and defense cou nsel’s
con ce ss i on that defenda

nt burglarize d t h e vict im’s apar t ment o n t he day of t he murder, the effect o f Paladi nes’s answer t o t he pro secut or ’s qu es t io n– if

in deed the j ury m

ade t he in

feren ce of prior crim

in al
co nd uc t –is minu sc ule

. T hu s, an y er r o rin t he ad mi ssio n of t he det ect ive’s

an swe r was not a m

aterial f actor i n d efendant’s convicti ons. See Hall , 194 I ll . 2d at 3 39. W e, th

ere f ore, ne ed not consider the Stat e’s ass ertion thatthe su stai ne d ob j ec ti on and the j ury i ns tructi on we re su ff

ic i ent t o c ur e any pr ejudice re sult ing fro m the question and Pal adi ne s’ s answe

r.

B. Defendant’s Videotaped Statement Defens e counsel

obje cted to the

ad m i ss i on of the enti re videotaped sta tem en t, arguin g t ha t port ions o f the t ape wer e irr elevant and pre judici al. The t rial co ur t ove rr uled t he o bject ion, finding tha t t he evi dence of ot her crim

es was a dmi ssi

ble beca use it w as “p ar t of t he
co nt inuingnar ra t iveof t he eve nt givingrise to the off ense or, in ot her word s, in tert win ed wi th the off ense ch arged.” The trial

court noted that th i s res

ul t wa s c on siste

nt wit h t he ap pe llat e c o ur t ’s de cis io n in People v. Slater , 393 Ill . App. 3d 977 (2009) (apply in g a contin uingnar ra t iveex cepti

on to the ge

neral rule b arri

ng a dm i ssi on ofothercri mes e vi den ce). At tri al , bef

ore t he v ide ot ape was pl

ay ed for the j ury, the trial courtnoted that it had

pr ev io us ly

denied defend ant ’s mot ion in limine to ba r pa rts of t he vi de otap ed sta tem en t i n w hi ch de f en da nt s poke of ot her bur gla rie s o n t he b as is t hat “it wa s t he d efe nd ant ’s st at ement *** and the

en tire statem en t shoul d com e i nto the r ecord.” The court stated that it had watched the obj ected-to port ion of the t ape a nd fou nd t ha t t he “p ar t icu lar t es t imo ny is s uffic ient t o s how intent and motiv e, and theref

ore bala nci ng i t o n that is sue, b etw een

i ts pr oba t ive-21- val ue and prejudicial , I belie ve t he pr oba t ive value w ou ld t ake t he posi tion and theref

ore f or those two reasons , I wil l al l ow i t in .” De fen da nt ar gu es t ha t t he po r t io n o f his v ide o t ap ed st at eme nt in whi ch he r eco unt ed ho w he and hi s gi rlf rien d would com

mi t burglari es was irre levant and pr ejudicial and sho uld no t have been s how n t o t he jury. He acknowledges t hat suc h ot her -c rimes evide nce may be used f orthe purpose of showi

ng i nten t and m otive , bu t ar gu es t ha t his intent and moti

ve to bu rgl ari zethe McA vi nc he y ap artm en t were n ot at iss ue

. T he o nly p o ss ible u se t he jur y mig h t h av e ma de o f t his evi dence, he as serts, i s to c on

vic t hi m of m urder b ase d on h

i s m ere pr open si ty to commi t burglaries. He also di stingui shes Slater , a rg uing that the other crim

es ref erred to in

hi s statemen

t ar e no t su fficie nt ly connected

t o t he cha rg ed c rime t o be adm itted under

the “conti

nuingnarrativ e exception” to t he propensi ty rule. The Sta te res pon dsth at th e tri al co ur t ’s r eliance o n Slater was correct and t hat defend ant ’s “brief d iscuss ion o f the pr oc edu re s he a nd Norwood usual l y em pl oyed when the y bu rgl ari ze d homeswa s p art of defendant’s c ont inui

ng narrat ive of how he brok e into t he victim’s ho me an d w as i n th e m i ddl e of b urgl arizi n g i t when t he vic t im returnedhome a nd he k ill ed he r. ” I n add itio n, t he Sta te argu es th at a defendant’s i

nte nt a nd moti ve are rel evan t even when not contro verted. Acco rd ing t o t he St at e, defend ant ’ s d es cr ipt io n o f his usual meth od of co mmi t t ing bur glar ies while avo iding get t ing cau ght sho we d t ha t his con

ti n ui n g m oti v e w as to obta i n p rope rty to se l l f or cash so t hat he co uld bu y dr ug s. Fina lly, t he St at e a ss er t s t ha t ev en if ad m i ss i on o f t his sma ll

por tion of the ta pe was erro r, it was harmless er ror gi v en th e ov er wh el m i n g ev i den ce

of de f en da n t’s gui l t. In Slater , the defen

dant was charged

with the f irst degree m

urder of one vi ctim and dom estic b atter y of

a second vi

ctim, hi s gi

rlf rien d. Slater , 393 Ill . App. 3d a

t 978 -79 . The evi

denc e showed

tha t on t he day of the kil li ng, the defendant was angry wi th his gi rlf riend b ecause he t hou ght she ha d bee n ou t wit h so meone else t he ni ght bef ore. He punch ed he rin t he no se wh il e she wa s dri v i n g h er ca r, c au si n g i t to bleed so much that she coul

d not se e to dri

ve

. Slater , 393 Ill . App. 3d at 979. They

retur ned t o t he du ple x t he y sha r ed so t ha t she co uld cl ean h er bloodied fac e. Shortly therea fter, two me

n arri ve d i n a car. The driv er exi ted the carand approached defend ant and his g irlfriend
on the p orch, o ff

er ing t o s ell dru gs. The dr iver d id no t leave t he-22- premi ses wh en ord er ed to do so by

defen dant, who retrieved a sh otgun f rom the trun k of his car . D efenda nt fired t he sho t gun in t he air and the dri

ver turned to leave. As he wal k ed b ack to h

i s ca r, defend ant fired a gain, hitt ing t he passen ger who had r emained in t he
car. He di ed as a res ul t of a sh otgu n wou n d to his f ace

. Slater , 39 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 979-80. On appe al , th e def

en da nt a rgued tha t cou ns el wa s i ne f f ec ti ve f or faili ng t o o bject t o t he join

der o f the two o ff

enses. The

appe l l ate court
r esolv ed this is sue by observi ng that even

if the domestic batter y chargeha d b een s evere d f

rom t he mur der char ge, t he St at e co uld have presented evidenc e o f the domesti c battery at the m urdertrial “un der t he co nt inuing-na rr at ive exce pt ion t o t he pr os cr ipt ion ag ainst t he ad m i ss i on of other-crim

es evi dence.” Slater , 393 I ll. App. 3d at 992. Thus, even if defens e co uns el had successf

ull y obj ected to the two chargesbeing t ried t og et her , t he jur y wou ld have hear d abo ut t he dom esti c v i ol en ce i n ci den t. Nei ther Slater

nor the parties o ffer an y au t ho r it y fro m t his court
re gar ding the e xi st ence or t he sc op e o f a co nt inuing-na rr at ive
ex cepti on to the pr

open si ty ru l e. In t he c as e o f People v. Pargone , 327 Il l . 463 (1 927 ), t he defend ant an

d two o t her men for ced t heir w ay into an ap ar t ment occupied by two wo me

n. They dem anded m oney and took a wat ch f rom one of the wome

n an d then tie dthe women ’s hands an d feet and laid them on the

bed. They

also bou nd a yo ung bo y they fo und hid ing in the ba t hro om and pus hed him unde r t he bed . Aft er ra nsac king t he ap ar t me n t, they

to ok clothin

g and other personal

item s and packe d them in boxes and sui

tcases. Eventual

ly , they cut t he r op es binding t he
women and s exua lly

assa ult ed t hem. T he defen dant “h ad i ntercourse” wi th one of t he wom

en an d “ com m i tted th e cri me a gai n st n atu re ” wi th t he o t he rwo man

. T he me nthen l eft, carryi

ng away the stolen propert y. Pargone , 327 Ill . at 465. T he def endan t was convicted o f the ra pe of one of the wome

n. He ar gue d o n app eal t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by admit t ing evi dence t hat he also assa ult ed t he se co nd woman because thi s was a dis tinct subs t ant ive offense ot her t han t he o ffense wit h which he was charged. Pa rgone , 32 7 I ll. a t 46 8. T his c o ur t he ld t ha t t he rule exclud ingev ide nc e t ha t a d efe nd an t ha s c o mm i tt ed other crim

es “appl ie s only to dis connected cri

me s. If ev

ide nce o ff ered has a-23- tendency t o pr o ve t he cr ime c ha r ge d it is co mpe t en t ev en t ho ug h it also proves a separate, distinct off ense.” Pargone , 327 Ill . at 468-69. The key fact was that “[a]l

l the a cts were part o f one tran sa cti on.” Pargone , 327 Ill . at 470. T his courtused the phrase “c o nt inu ing na rr at ive ” fo rt he firs t t ime in People v. Ma rose , 10 Il l . 2d 340 , 343 (1 957). In that ca se, t hi s co ur t ru led t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t er r by ad mitt ing evi dence that
a defen dant who was ch

arged with rape was dri

vi ng a stolen car when he abdu ct ed t he vict im or t hat he forced her to subm

it to o ther sexual
acts af ter th e rap e. “ The f

acts co nc er nin g the stolen car an d ot her sexual ac ts a re a l l a p art of t he co nt inuingnar ra t ive which co ncer n t he ci rcumstances at t ending t he ent ire t ra nsac t ion and they do not concern separate, di sti

nct and di scon ne cted cr i mes.” Marose , 10 Ill . 2d at 343. Se e also People

v. Walls , 3 3 I ll. 2d 3 94, 397 (1 965 ) ( evidenc e t hat rape defen

dant and accom

pli ces stole the automobi

le in whi ch they dr ove the vi

ctim home was properly

adm itted as par t of c ont inuing
nar ra t iveof “

‘ci rcum stan ces attend i ng th e en tire trans action’ ”), quo t ing Marose , 10 Ill . 2d at 343 ; People v. Johnson , 34 Ill . 2d 202, 206 (1966) (in tri al

of d efenda nt char ged wit h st ealing fro m a sleep ing tra in passen ger, test im

ony tha t he stole f

rom another sleep in g pas sen ger on the s am e trai n w as p art of c onti

nui ng n arrati ve ). In con tra st, ot her-cri

me s evidenc e may not be ad mitt ed u nder t he continui ng-narrati ve ex ception, eve

n when the crim es occur in

close pr oxi mit y, i f

the cri mes a re disti nct and “u nde rtaken f or di f f ere n t
re aso ns at a differe nt pla

ce at a separate time.” People v. Lindgren , 79 I ll. 2d 12 9, 1 39 -4 0 ( 19 80 ) (g

ra n ti n g n ew trial to defen dant charged wi th the murde r o f his girlf

riend’s gr an

df ath er wh ere S tate adm itted evi dence that he set fi

re to hi s ex-wif

e’s house six

blocks a w ay and one to two hours

af ter the v i cti m wasrobb ed an

d ki l l ed). Evidence re ga rdi n g th e b urgl ar y of th e Calla han apartment was pr o pe r ly admi tt ed in this case because i

t was part of t he co nt inuing
nar ra t iveof the ch

arged m urder. H owev er, defen

dant is correct that his ad miss io n t ha t he wo uld “g o o ut fr o m t ime to tim e and b urglari ze” and his desc ript ion o f the t ec hniq ue he r eg ula r ly em ploy ed to do so do not fi t t hi s e x ce pti on. His ea rlier bu rg laries w er e no t re levant t o t he ci rcum stan ces on the day of the m urder. Howev er, we c onc lude t hat even t hou gh de fendant objec t ed t o t he ad m i ss i on of the se sta tem en ts, th ey were rel evan t f ora purpose ot her-24- than sho win g h is mere propensity to co mm it crim es. These sta

tem en ts
were con siste n t w ith and t ende d t o s upp or t t he t heo ry o f the defen se–thath e c om

m i tted th e b urgl ar y th at day , but l ef t b efo re t he murder oc cur re d. Defend ant ca nno t co mpla in that he was prej udic ed by his own men tion of h i s other c ri mes whe n his admission t hat he burglarize d

res i de nc esf

rom tim e to t im e and h ad de ve l ope d m

ea ns of
avo idingdet ect ion t end ed t o sho w t ha t as a b ur gla r , he su cc es sfu lly avoi ded co nt act wit h t h e r eside nt s o f the homes he ent er ed. We concl ude, t he r efo r e, t ha t it wa s no t er r o rfo rt he t r ial c o ur t t o ad mit t he chall enged po rt ions of defendant’s vid eo t ap ed st at eme nt o ve rhis obj ection. Even i f adm is si on of such

statements i s error, such an error does not necess aril

y e ntitle defe ndan t t o a new tria l . If im properly adm itted ot her-cri me s ev ide nce was not a material factor in def endant’s
conv i cti on, rev

ersa l i s n ot requi red. Hall , 194 Il

l . 2d at 33 9. We fi nd i t high ly unl ike ly that t he jury

was i mproperl y i nf lue nced by defen dant’s b rief acc oun t of his ty pical approac h to bu rglary . If any thin g, hi s expl

anati on of the ef

forts he would take to ensure that he wo uld no t en co un t er an yo ne at ho me dur ing o ne o f his c r imes is
co nsist ent wi

th his cl ai m that he i s m

erel y a burgl ar, not a m

urdere r. Furth er, t he ev ide nc e o f de fen da nt ’s gu ilt wa s o ve rwh elm in g. Thus, even if it w as e rr or t o a dmit p or t ions o f de fen da nt ’s st at eme nt , he is
no t en t it led t o a n ew t r ial o n t his b as is

III . El i gi b i l i ty f or th e D ea th Pen al ty A de f en da n t wh o i s c on v i cte d of m urder i s e l i gi

b l e f or th e dea th pen al ty if he is over the age of 18, the m urdered in

div idua l was kill ed in the cou rs e of an o t he rfelo ny, an d t he de fen da nt ac t ua lly killed t he
m urdere d i ndi vi dual . 720 IL CS 5/9

–1(b )(6)(a)( i) (We st 2002 ). At the eligi

bi li ty he arin g, the Stat e presented a certif ie d copy o f defendant’s b i rth ce rt if

ic ate, showin

g hi s date of bi

rth as Jul y 29, 1963, mak

i n g h i m 40 yea rsol d a t th e ti me of th e m urder. Th e S tate also presented certif

ie d copies of

the v erdi ct fo rms fr o m t he gu ilt phas e of the trial , showin

g that defenda

nt had b een conv

icted of fi rst degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9–1(a) (West 2002)), home i nvasi on (720 ILCS 5/12–11(a)(2) (West 2002)), and resi dentia l burglary (720 ILCS 5/19–3(a) (West 2002)). The prosecut or argued t hat the evi dence at-25- trial pro ved t ha t de fen da nt wa s t he ind ividua l wh o kille d t he vic t im and th at af

ter th e k il li ng he removed cer tain items of the victim’s pr operty f rom th e a pa rtm en t. The t rial co ur t fou nd t hat th e S ta te m et i ts b urden of proof to sh owthat de fendant was 18 yea rs o f age o r o lder at t he t ime of t he
m urder. Furth

er, the evi dence adduce d at tr ia

l s howed that defend ant “in fact, comm

itted the murder, an

d t hat , w hile committ ing t he
m urder, connected

to that m urder, we r e t he ad dit io na l cr imes o f ho me invasion, a f

elony, an d re sident ial burg lary, a felony.” The prerequisi tes f orel i gi b i l i ty for the death pena

lty “h avi ng be en proven bey ond a r ea so na ble do ub t , ” t he t r ial c o ur t fo un d d efe nd an t elig ib l e for death penal

ty sen tenci ng. De fen da nt ar gu es in

hi s brief to thi s c ourt th at the c onv

i cti on f or ho me invasion mus t be vac at ed be cau se it was base d o n t he “s am e phy si cal acts” as th e m urder a n d th at, as a res ul t, the murder

wa s n ot
co mmi t t ed “in t he co ur se o f” a se par at e felony o f home invasio n. At oralargum

en t, howev er, counsel con

ce de d that d ef

en da nt’ s c onv i cti on f orhom e i nv as i on i s p rope r un der our de ci si on in People v. McLaurin , 184 Ill . 2d 58 (1998) ( ho me in vasion is n

ot a lesser-i

ncl uded offense of i ntentiona l murder). He argued, instead, that t he m ann er in whi ch t he Stat e charged the two crim es i n the i ndi ctmen t (allegi ng that defend ant “b eat and stabbe d” t he vic t im cau sing her dea t h and t hat he “b eat and s t abbed ” t he vict im i nt ent ionally caus ing

injury) means that t he ho me inv as io n c o nvic t io n ba se d o n t he sa me charged conduct may not be used as an

aggravatin

g factor at t he el

igi bi li ty phase of a capi

tal
sen tenc i ng h eari ng. He argues f

urthe r that un der the stan

dard establ i shed b

y thi s court in People v. Hat tery , 1 09 I ll. 2d 4 49 ( 198 5) , c ou nsel wa s ineffect ive f orco nc ed in g at t rial

that he comm

itted the fel

ony of resi dentia

l bur glary

. Defendant’s com

m i ss i on of m urder i n th e c ours e of

eithe r felo ny pr o vid es a s uffic ien t ba sis for t he t rial co ur t ’s finding t hat defend ant
was elig ible fo rt he de at h p en alt y. See People v. Williams , 193 Ill . 2d 306, 362-6 3 (200 0). Thus , i f ei th er of de f en da n t’s two a rgum en ts fai ls, the other argument nee d notbe ad dr esse d by t his co ur t . We choose to address the i ssue regardi ng counsel ’s perf

ormance

. Ge ne r ally, a c laim

of in eff ective assistance of couns el is anal yzed-26- under the two- part t est set out by the Uni ted States S uprem e Court in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693, 10 4 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). Ho wever, the Strickland cour t noted that so me ci

rcumstances are so likel

y to cause prejudi

ce t o t he accused t ha t pr eju dic e w ill

be presum ed. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 696, 104 S. Ct. at 2067, citi ng United

States v. Cro nic , 466 U .S. 648, 8 0 L. Ed . 2d 657 , 104 S. Ct. 2039 (19 84). Wh erecou nsel “ entirely f

ail s to subject t he pro secut ion’s case to
me ani ngf ul adversari al testing, then there h

as been a d en ia l of Si xth Am en dment r igh t s t ha t mak es t he ad ve r sa ry pr o ce ss it se lf presum ptivel y unrel ia ble.” Cronic , 466 U.S. at 659, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 668, 10 4 S. Ct. at 20 47. T his court applie d

the Cronic

an alys is in Hattery , finding t hat t he defend ant had b een den

ie d ef f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel . Hattery

was convi cted o f t he m

urd ers of a wom

an an d her two chil

dren. He had been ordered by Mi ster, a le ader in the street gang to whi ch b ot h m en be lo ng ed , t o r ema in

wit h t he vic t ims in

their apartm

ent whi le Mi ster took th ei r h us b an d a n d f ath er on an unsucc es sf

ul se arch to buy drugs. Mister to ld the defen

dant t hat if

he did not retu rn in

fi ve m in utes, he knew “ wh at to d o.”Ha tter y un ders tood th

at h e w as to kil l the woman and her children. He waited longer than f iv e mi nutes, bu t he did f

ol l ow Mi ster ’s i nstructi ons. Hattery , 109 Ill . 2d at 453-55. The evi dence aga ins t Hattery was overwhel mi ng, and i

ncl uded a transcri

bed st at ement i

n w hi ch he adm i tted the m

urders

. Hattery , 109 Ill . 2d at 454-5 5. Defens e co unse l conc ede d du ring o pening ar gument that Ha ttery had killed t he three victim

s, but argued that he did s o because Mi ster
wo uld k ill h is m

ot her and sister s if

he refused t o follow Mister ’s ord ers. Hattery , 109 Ill . 2d at 458. Co unse l to ld t he members of t he j ury that he did not expect them to fi nd hi s cl ie nt not guil

ty of m urder and that he di d expect

t hem to find

him e lig ible fo rt he de at h p en alt y. Counsel ar gu ed t ha t “t he o nly

question f

aci ng” the j ury was

whether to impo se t he de at h p en alt y o n a kille r who wa s t rying t o s ave t he l i ve s of his own f am i l y mem bers. Hattery , 109 Il

l . 2d at 45 9. Dur ingtrial, defense counsel attempted to develop, thro ugh crossexaminat ion, evi

dence that

the defe ndan t was com pe l l ed b y Miste r to kill the vi

ctim s. Otherwis e, counsel

presen ted no t heo ry o f the defen se, pr ese nt ed no evidenc e, and c ho se not t o mak e a c losing-27- sta tem en t. Hattery , 1 09 I ll. 2d a t 459 . T he defendant’s att orneys al so conceded that his statement conf

es si ng to the murders was trut hf ul and me ntioned a t several po int s d ur ing t he gu ilt ph as e o f t r ial t ha t t his
was a “death pen

al ty case.” Th

e prosecuto r’s cl

osin g argumen

t
em phasi zed the fac t t hat defe

nse coun sel conceded the de fendant’s gui l t. Hattery , 109 Il

l . 2d at 46 0. T his court concl

uded tha t cou ns el ’s “uneq ui voc al ” c onc es si

on of his clie nt’s gui lt, when Ha t t er y ha d p lea de d n o t gu ilt y, re sult ed in t he St ate ’s ca se no t be ing “su bje ct ed t o t he ‘me aning fu l a dversari al testing’ required b

y the si xth am endm ent.” Hattery , 109 Ill . 2d at 464, quot in g Cronic , 466 U.S. at 6 56 , 80 L. Ed. 2d

at 6 66 , 10 4 S . C t. at 2045. In addi

tion, certain

comm ents by defen se counsel

“f urther im pressed upo n t he jur y the false no t ion t hat t he gui l t or i nn ocenc e of t he defen dant was not at issue

but, rather, hadal

ready be en deci ded.” Thi s strategy was n

ot unreasonab le , giv

en t he fac t s, bu t “w as t o t ally at odd s wi th def endan t’s e arl i er pl ea of not gui l ty.” Thus, thi s strategy sho uld n ot h av

e b een pu rsue d w i th out th e de f en da n t’s con se n t. Hattery , 109 Ill . 2d at 464-65. Thi s court r eversed defen dant’s m urder
co nvictio ns on

t he bas is tha t t he de fendant was denied his right t o t he ef f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel

. Hattery , 109 Il

l . 2d at 46 5. Defend ant ar gu es t ha t he wa s s imilar ly de nie d t he effe ct iv e ass i stan ce of coun sel

. At t he gu ilt pha se o f tr ial, t he at t or ney pr ese nt ing defend ant ’ s op ening ar gu men t be ga n: “O n J ul y 31 st , 20 03 , Ro dn ey A dki ns co mmit ted a bu rg lary at t he ho me of Ca t her ine McAvinchey. ” She further stated t hat after def

endan t rumm aged through her

ap ar tmen t, t aking je wel ry an d ot her i tems, “ then wh at he di d w as left .” She acknowl edged

that t he ph

ys ic al evi dence, i ncl uding fingerp rint s and DNA, pla

ced hi m a t t he scen

e of the m

urder, but argued t h at no phy si cal evi dence, such

asha i r or fi bers, conne cted hi

m to the murder
we ap on or t o t he b ody of the v

ictim . She c oncluded b y s ay in g that “the phy si cal evi dence in this case wi ll show y ou t hat Ro dney Adk ins
comm itted a burglary, but t hi s evi dence do es no t sho w t hat he
comm itted murder.” Defens e counse l

thor oughly

cross- exam

in ed the St ate’s witnesses. The propr i etor of t he pa wn sho p whe re defend ant so ld jewelr y the af tern oon of the m

urder ackn owledg ed

tha t he sa w n o bl ood on defendant’s clot hing. H os kins did no t find any bloo d o n t he duff

le bag-28- or the computers he b ought from def endan t. The offi

ce r wh o recovered t he du ffle ba

g f rom Hos ki ns sa w n o bl ood on the ba g or it s content s. The assi st ant medi cal ex ami ner acknowledged on cro ssexam i na ti on that DNA or ot her

evi dence m ay be transf erred from a

n atta cker to a vi ctim “i n cl ose proxim

ity ” to each ot her and th at no su ch ev id en ce wa s fo un d o n t he vic t im’s bo dy. Other cross-exam

in ations establi

shed that the State Po li

ce DNA anal yst di d n ot s wa b or te st the han

dle of the m urder weapon when she tested t he b loodstain on the bl

ade. She d id n o t t es t fing er na il clippi ngsfro m the vict im f

or DNA o r e xaminethe bl ack duff le bag f or bloo dstains. She agreed that she c ould not det er min e whe n a particular DNA sam

ple was deposi

ted. D efens e counsel questioned Paladi nes regarding photo graphs o f d efenda nt taken

af ter he gave the

vi deotaped statem en t. Th e pho t og ra phs were taken to show t hat he h ad no i nj uries . Palad

ine s acknowl edged

t ha t su ch ph o t o gr ap hs w o uld no t sho w if any “m ental coerci on or an y thi ng l i ke that” had h

appe ne d to the de f

endan t. Counsel also que st ioned bot h Co t t er and P aladines re gar ding t he fact that Nor wood was not charged in this case, suggesti

ng that they bel ie ved de fe nd ant’s conf

essi on was f al se, at least to t he ex

tent t hat it implic at ed No rwo o d in t he bur glar y and mur der . Ass ista nt St ate ’s Atto rney Sa n ti n i also a ck n owl ed ge d th at th e on l y pers on ch arge d w i th t his murd er was defend ant . Howev er , t he t rial co ur t sus t ained t he St ate ’s obj ec ti ons

to al l othe r questi ons

reg ard i ng hi s dec i si on not to chargeNo rwo o d a nd his b elie f o rno nbe lief inthe t rut h of defendant’s statem en t. The def en se re sted wi

thout cal l i ng a ny wi tnes ses

. In closi ng a rgum en t, d efen se c ou nsel t old t he jur y that “a de l i b erate and d ispass ionat e exa minatio n of t he ev ide nc e” wo uld sh ow that “Rodney

Adki ns com mi tt ed t he re sident ial burg lary o f Cat hy McAvinc hey’s

ho me, bu t he did no t se e h er , he did no t co me i n contact wit h he r , an d h e d id n o t mur de rhe r

. ” C o un se l re pe at ed ly
em phasi zed th e f act th at n o ph y si ca l ev i den ce con n ected de f en da n t to t he m urder weapon

or to the vi

cti m ’sbody –there wa s n

o ev i denc e of him on her; no ev

i den ce of he r bl ood on hi m . Coun sel

des cri bed his client as a drugaddict w

ho s tol e to supp ort hi s h

ab i t, but wh o wa s n ot
a murderer, and c alle d

t he j ur y ’s atte n ti on to un i den ti f i ed f i n gerp ri n ts-29- in victim ’s h

ome, poin ting out that t he polic e di d n ot a t t emp t t o lift f i n gerp ri n ts f rom the si nk orf aucet h an dl es to see who else might have ri ns ed b l ood from

the k ni f e. Counsel argued further that defendant’s vi deotaped st atemen

t was fal se, em phasi zi ng the f act that defendan

t’s statement i

mpl ic ated Norwo od, ye

t she wasnot charged . If

hi s statemen

t were tr ue, counsel argued, Norwo od would have been charged. Th

us , t he “r ea so na ble in feren ce is tha t Oak Par k and the Stat e’s A tt orney do not beli

eve that Rom an ette Norw oo d wa s t her e whe n t he mur der happ ened .” The court sustai

ne d the State’s obj ection to thi s com

men t. Counsel ch ara cteri ze d the p ortions

of t he st at ement re gar ding t he bur glary as true and noted their detail. In c ontrast, counsel ar gue d, t he porti ons of t he st at ement re gar ding t he alleged murd er wer e lack ing in detail or were inac curate (for exam ple , defen dan t s aid tha t there
was li tt le bl ood at the scene). This, h e suggested, in

di cated that t he police “fe d” de fen da nt de t ails of the m urder so t hat

he would in

cl ude them in his st at ement . Ac co rd ing to counsel , it was notewort hy that de f en da nt’ s state men

t did n ot men t io n his smok ing a ciga re t t e at t he
scene. This o mission, he sugges ted, o cc ur r ed be ca us e t he po lice did
n ot le arn unt il

much l ate r t hat t he cigaret te but t fou nd in Cal lahan’s apartm en t contai ne d def endan t’s D NA

. In c onc lusion, cou

ns el rei tera ted the the me of t he de fense: “If he left behind

evidenc e o f a re sident ial burg lary, w hy wou ldn’t he leave behind ev id ence of a murd er ?” Co unse l reminded t he jur y of t he pre su m ption o f inno ce nce and t he S t at e’ s bu rd en o f p ro vi ng gu ilt b ey on d a re as on ab l e doub

t. In its reb ut t al, t he St at e r esp ond ed t o c ou nsel’s a rg ument
re gar ding the

f ac t tha t Norwood

wa s not prosecut ed by

stating that defend ant wa s try

i ng to de f l ec t som e of the bl am e for his own cri

me s on to his girlfriend a nd t hat t he only evi dence that put Norwo od at t he
sc en e w as de f en da n t’s own sta tem en t. Citing t his co ur t ’s de cision in Hattery , defen dant now argues that t his ent ire st ra t eg y wa s flaw ed bec au se “[ i]f it fa iled and t he j ury convi cted [ de fen da nt ] o f t he mur de r , he ha d n o de fen se t o his el i gi b i l i ty f ort he death penal

ty be cause of couns el ’s conces si on that [he ] ha d com m i tted resi den tia l bur glary .” He att empts to distin guish t his co ur t ’s de cis io n in People v. Johnson , 12 8 I ll. 2d 2 53 ( 198 9), on-30- t he basis t hat t he de fendant in that case attempted to use Hattery to at t ack his co nvictio n, no t his sent ence . D efenda nt explains t hat he is not ar guing t hat t he strategy was in eff ectiv e at the guil

t phase, but that “counsel needed h is consent f or t hat strategy

because of [its] ef

f ec t on t he eligibil

ity phas e o f the pr oc eed ings, ” bec aus e t his co nc es sio n, st anding al one, was suf

fi ci en t t o ma ke

h i m el i gi b l e f or th e dea th pen al ty on ce the j ury

f ound h i m gui l ty of m urder. In Johnson , t his court addressed a def endan t’s cl ai m that hi s trial counsel was presum

ptivel y i nef fecti ve un der Cronic

and Hattery . T he defend ant had be en fi

red f ro m his j ob a nd he r et ur ned t o t he workplaceto confront his f ormer m anager over un

pai d wages to whi ch he though

t h e wa s ent itled . Aft er he wa s re fused , he left a nd returnedwith a

gun. He sh

ot the ma nager an d an ot her em ploy ee several tim es and ordered a second em ploy ee to li e on the fl

oor . He took a w al l et fro m the man ag er ’s bo dy. He t o o k c as h a nd ca rke ys f rom the second em

ploy ee and sh ot hi m twice , t hen to ok additiona l cash fro m his poc ket . Whe n he sa w t ha t t he se co nd emp lo yee wa s s t ill movi ng, he sta bb ed hi m wi th a kn i f e. The f i rs t em pl oyeedied f rom two gun shot wounds

to the ch

est. The m

anager a nd the sec ond
em ploy ee su rv i v ed th ei r i n j uri es an d te sti f i ed at tr i al . A f ter h i s a rre st, t he de fen da nt t o ld

officer s whe re t hey co uld find t he murd er wea po n. He al so gave poli

ce a wri tt en statemen

t, wh ich was a dm

i tted i n to
ev ide nc e a t t r ial. Johnson , 128 Il l . 2d at 25 9-61. The theory of the def

ense was t hat altho ugh t he de fendant
comm itted mur de ran d o t he rcr imes , he did no t co mmit mur de rin t he
cour se of an armed robbery . Thus, de f ense cou n se l con ce de d g ui l t to
m urder, but co nt est ed t he ar med r obbe ry and fel ony-m urder charges. T his strategy was based

on counsel ’s ass essm

ent that the evi dence

on t he in t ent ional- murd er char ge w as o ver whelming, bu t t hat if the defend ant we re fo und no t gu ilty o f f el ony mur der , he wo uld no t be elig ible fo rt he de at h p en alt y. Johnson , 128 Il l . 2d at 26 2. Defe nse couns el

co nced ed d ur ing his op ening st at ement t hat t he defend ant comm

itted the murder, but argued thathe did s o be for e he deci ded to tak e p rop er ty f rom th e v i cti m . Th e iss ue , a cc ordi

n g to
co un se l, wa s n

ot whe ther the defe

ndan t commi tt ed m urder, but whether he c o mmit t ed fel

ony m urder. During tri al , defense counsel
cross-exam

in ed th e s ur v i v i n g v i cti m s, atte m pti n g to e l i ci t t es t imo ny that t he de fen da nt did no t en t er t he st o r e w it h t he int en t t o r o b t he m.-31- Johnson , 128 I ll . 2d at 264-65. The defense pr ese nt ed no witnesses. I n c lo sing ar gu men t , co un se l ag ain ad m i tted d ef en da nt’ s g ui l t of t he
m urder, but reiterated the claim tha t defend ant t oo k t he mone y and ot her pr operty as “ an af ter th oug h t” and that, therefore, the Stat e had not proven bey

ond a r ea so na ble doubt t hat he com mi tt ed the m urder in t he co ur se o f a n a rmed r o bbe ry. Johnson , 12 8 I ll. 2d at 265 . T he defend ant was convi

cted o f fe lony murd er and o t her char ges and sent ence d t o d eat h. T his court dis

tingui shed this trial

strategy from

the one em

ploy ed in Hattery , where counsel “m ade an un eq uivo cal co nces sion t o t he murder ch arge , the on

l y ch arge b rough t ag ai n st t he defend ant ,” and wh erecounsel

conceded el i gi bi l i ty f or the de ath p enal

ty. Johnson , 128 I ll. 2d at 26 7-68. In Johnson , t here “was asserted a t heory of defen se to a n um be r of ch arge s, n ot j us t a

theory of m i tig ati on, an

d this the ory was pur sue d du ring o pening a nd clo sing ar gument s and dur ingcrossex am i na tion .” Johnson , 128 Ill . 2dat 270. Although couns el conceded his clie nt ’s gu ilt o f murde r, “go ing t o t rial did p re ser ve fo r t he defend ant matters that a guil ty plea ne ces sari l y would ha ve wai ve d.” Johnson , 12 8 I ll. 2d a

t 270 . In addi ti on, cou ns el di d n ot aban don even t he pr et ense of d efending his c lient; r at her , c ou nsel ar gue d t hat t he Sta te wasrequi

red to m eet i ts bu rden of pro of bey

o nd a r ea so na ble doubt a nd th at i t had not done so. Johnson , 128 Il

l . 2d at 27 0. Because we found Hattery in applic abl e, this c ourt then conducted t he two-part Strickland

analysis for ineffect iveassi stance of couns el and, wit hou t dec iding t he first pr ong , c onc luded t hat in li ght of t he
ove rw helming

evidenc e, t he de fendant suffer ed no pr ejudice fro m the clai med err ors. Johnson , 128 Il

l . 2d at 27 1. In the present case, def endan t do es not make a c la

im unde r Strickland

. Neit he r p ar

ty b rief ed th i s iss ue . A t oral argu men t, defen dant ad mit t ed t ha t giv en t he st r en gt h o f t he St at e’ s c as e, it would be di f f i cul t for h i m to mee t the pre j udice pron

g. He argues i

nstead thatco un se l’s st r at eg ic choi ce at the guil t phase, altho ugh it mighthave be en a r ea so na ble t r ial s t r at eg y, d ep r ive d h im of his right t o d emand th at th e S tate prov e h i s e l i gi b i l i ty f or th e dea th pen al ty beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt . T hus, defend ant ar gue s, t he que sti on pr es en

te d is whe t her unde r o ur dec isions in Hattery and Johnson he

wa s dep ri

ve d of his right t o a n adve rsa rial hear ing at t he el i gi b i l i ty phase b ecause counse l c onceded his guilt of resi dentia l-32- bur glary at the g uil t pha se. The Stat e responds tha

t cou ns el di d n ot co nc ed e d efe nd an t ’s gu ilt
on all charg es, as o ccu rr ed in Hattery ; r at he r , co un se l vig o r o us ly
co nt ested t he mur der char ge e ven while ac kno wledg ing t hat t he evi dence o f de fend ant ’s g uilt o f resi dentia l b urglary was overwhel mi ng. Fu r t he r , be ca us e e lig ibilit y for t he de at h p en alt y did not becom e an issue un

til after de f en da nt wasf oun d gu i l ty of m urder, the State argue s tha

t couns el ’stria

l strategy wasreas onab l e. We fi nd that the present ca se more closely resembl es Johnson than i t do es Hattery . Defen

dant’s attor ney

s did not concede that he was gu ilt y of m

urder; they

did s ubj ect Stat e’s cas e to meani ngf ul adversari al testing; and they

did pres ent a theory of the def ense. The evi dence conv

in ci ngl y de mons trat ed t hat defend ant
comm itted the burglary of

McAv in chey ’s apartme

nt. Defense counsel recogniz ed that there were only three pos si

bl e e xp l an ati ons f orwhat happ ened on t hat July day: e ither defend ant bro ke int o a n apa rt ment inwhi ch the resi

dent had j ust been m

urdered, or he com

mi tt ed th e murder i n the cours e of

the b urgl ary, or he l

ef t the ap art me nt wi th stolen pr op er t y and t he r eside nt was m urderedby

someone else al

most immed iat ely

t her eaft er . C ou nsel likely f ou nd t he f

i rs t sc en ar io unworthy of

bel ie f be ca us e a pers on who disco ver ed a murd er sce ne dur inga burglary woul

d li kel y f le e rather t han r emain to co mplet e t he
cr ime and l

eave b ehi nd ev ide nce t hat co uld incr imi nat e him in the
m urder. Thus, the t he ory

pursued b

y the def en se was that the m

ere pos si b i l i ty of the third scenario created reaso n ab l e doubt of def endan t’s gu i l t. Counsel al so had to co ntend wi th defen dant’s v ide ot aped sta tem en t, which ad mitt ed bo t h t he bur glar ies and t he murde r. At t emp ts to exclud e t he st at ement wer e uns ucc essfu l. Thu s, t he at t o rne ys r ep r es en t ing de fen da nt r ec o gn ize d t ha t t o av o id a con vi cti on f ormur de r , t he y had t o no t o nly ex pla in t he ph ysic al e vid ence, they had t o dis co un t de fen da nt ’s inc r iminat ing st at eme nt

. T he o nly
r ea so na ble wa y t o add re ss t he physical evide nce– DNA o n t he ci ga re tte b ut t , fi ngerpri

nt on the bott le , and the stolen goods either pawned, so ld, o r g iven awa y by th e de fendant –wa s t o a dmit t hat he had co mmi tte d the burglaries . Counsel al so argued zealousl

y, b ut
un su cc es sfu lly, th at def

en da n t’s sta tem en t wa s n ot w o r t hy of bel

ie f be caus e he was

ei ther l ured or pr

ess ed i n to m aki ng th e statem en t.-33- Defend ant do es no t sug ges t an alt er nat ivet heo ry t hat mighthave been pu rsue d a t t r ial a nd, in

deed, he admi

ts t hat this theory was a
r ea so na ble approach at the guil t phase, giv

en t he ev ide nc e a ga inst him. He argues thateven

thoughhe

waswel l repre sen ted at tri al , the f

ai l ure of t he de fense st ra t egy de pr ived him of a meaningfu l hearing on t he que sti on of death el

igi bi li ty. He ci tes our dec ision in People v. Mata , 217 Il l . 2d 535 (2005 ). In Mata , a

de f en da n t wh ose de ath sentence had b een com

muted to a sentenc e of natural li fe i n pri son chal

l en ged the statutory agg ra vat ingfactor that had been used t o findh er

el i gi b l e f or th e dea th pe na lt y. Had she n

ot been found death-el

igi ble, she wo uld have been sentence d t o a t er m o f yea r s w it hthe possibil ity of even tual parole. Thus, even

though her de at h s en t en ce wa s c o mmut ed , she wa s s t ill
su b j ect to the e f

f ects of the f i ndi ng of el i gi bi l i ty. Mata , 217 Ill . 2d at 542-43. Her ar gument on appeal was thatt he St at e had not pr ove n t he statutory aggrav ating f

actor o f com

mi ssion of m

urder in “a cold, calcul ated and prem

edi tated mann

er pur sua nt t o a pr eco nceived plan,
sc he me ordesign to t ake a hum an l if e by unl awful me ans” (720 ILCS 5/9–1(b)(11) (West 1998) ) bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Mata , 21 7 I ll. 2d at 539. The i ss ue wa s g ov er

n ed b y th e U n i ted Sta tes Su pr em e C our t’ s dec isions in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed . 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (20 00), and Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556, 122 S. Ct. 2428 (2 002 ). In Apprendi , t he Co ur t he ld that “[o]ther than the f

act of a p riorconvi

ction, any fact that in

creases t he pena lty for a cr ime beyond t he prescribed statut ory max im um m ust be su bm i tted to a j ury , an d pr ove d b ey ond a re as on a bl

e doubt.” Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 455, 12 0 S . C t. at 2362- 63. In Ring , t he C o ur t no t ed t hat t he a gg ra vat ing fa ctors tha t al l ow i m pos i ti on of t he de at h pena lty o per at e as “ ‘t he funct ional eq uivalent of an el em ent of a greater offe

nse.’ ” Ring , 536 U.S . at 609, 153 L. Ed. 2d a t 577 , 1 22 S . C t . a t 244 3, quo t ing Apprendi , 536 U.S. at 494 n.19, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 457 n.19, 120 S. Ct. at 2365 n.19. Under t hese rules, Mata was ent itled t o c laim that t he evide nce o f the agg ra vat ing f ac torwa s i

n suf f i ci en t, d es pi te the com m uta ti on of her death sen

tence. The matt er was re manded t o t he appe l l atecou rt f or con si derati on of the m eri ts of h er app eal

. Mata , 217 Il

l . 2d at 55 0-51. Defend ant off

ersMata as suppor t for his argument that because-34- a statut ory aggravati

ng f ac t o r is the “f

unctiona l e quiv al ent” of an element of

the of f ense of capi tal m urder, defens e co unse l’s co nced ing exi stenceof

an y one of t he ch arge d agg ra v ati n g f actorsam oun ted to
a guil ty plea “to a new off

ense” w ithouthis co nsent t o s uch a plea. At oralargumen

t, co unsel used the e xpress ion that trial counsel had “p l eade d gui

l ty to el i gi bi l i ty.” Mata do es no t su pp o r t t his argumen t. The constitutional

righ t at stake in Apprendi , Ring , and Mata wa s th e s i xth am en dm en t ri gh t to trial by jury –to have each el

em ent of each

off ense proved to an i m partial j ury bey ond a reasonabl

e doubt. The constitutional righ t at stake in Cronic , Hattery , and Johnson wa s th e s i xth amendment right to the e f f ecti ve ass i stan ce of coun sel . D efend ant does not make an Apprendi -ba sed

argum en t. Even under the Apprendili

ne of cases, no e rr or oc cur re d. At t he be gin ningo f t he se nt en cin g p ha se , t he St at e mo ve d t o r ea dmit al l evi dence presented at tr ial . The mot ion was grant ed. D efendant’s el i gi b i l i ty f or th e dea th pen al ty wa s s h own to th e trial

court –an im partial fi nder of f act–by overwhel

mi ng ev ide ncethat he was in terrupt ed by the vict im whil

e in the act of bu rg larizing her apa rt ment
an d tha t he ki l l ed he r to av oi d b ei ng i denti f i ed . Th us , th e f i nd i ng of el i gi b i l i ty for the dea

thsentence

did n ot violate Apprendi , Ring , or Mata

. In su m, de fen da nt ha s no t de mo nst r at ed t ha t t r ial c ou ns el was pr es ump t ive ly

i ne f f ecti ve und er Cronic and Hattery an

d hasnot argued prej udice un

der Strickland . T hus, he wa s pr op er ly f ou nd elig ible f or th e dea th pen al ty base d o n his co mmi

ssio n of mur der in the
co ur se o f ar es id en t ial b ur gl ar y.

IV . R ight o f Co nfr o nt at io n at Se co nd P has e o f

Sent encing H ear ing During the second phase of the sentencin g hearin g, o ver defens e cou nsel’s obj ec ti on, the

State wa s p erm

i tted to a dm i t i nto e vi dence t he af f i da vi t of Stev en Fa rre l l Doz i er, f orm er d i rectorof the Arkans as Sta te Police. The af

fi davi t stat ed that in

1986, Dozier had b een an i nv es ti ga torin the crim

in al in vestigation di

vi si on of the state poli ce. He assi sted a local

police d epa rt ment in t he invest igat ion int o t he
o r igin and ca us e o f a h ou se fire. Pr op er t y had bee n st olen fr om t he-35- prem i ses . In h i s opi ni on, the f i re ha d b een s et to c ove

r th e c ri mesof bur glary and thef t. He subsequentl

y i nterviewed def

endan t, who was in cu stod y i n T en ne ss eeaw ai

ti ng ex trad i ti on to Arkans as to face ot her charges. Defe

ndan t confessed to the break-i n an d the t h ef

t o f pr o pe r t y, b ut i

n i ti al l y den i ed setti n g th e f i re . H e a l so a dm i tted to another bre ak- in and

t he ft ea r lier t he sa me day . Defen dant consented to t he se ar ch o f the roo m that he occupied in his m ot her ’s ho me. T he stolen pro pe rty f rom th e two hom

es was f ound i n h i s room . In add itio n, o t he rst o len pr o pe r t y wa s r ec o ve r ed fr o m ind iv iduals w ho stated that t hey

purch ase d t he ite ms fro m defenda nt . D efenda nt pl eade d g ui l ty to burgl ar y , thef t, an d a rs on an d w as se n ten ce d to 20 ye ars’ i mprisonm ent, with 12 y

ears suspen

ded. The Stat e al so call

ed Cook Co unty Assi stant Stat e’s A tt orney Ja mie Santin

i, wh o t estif ie d that on Sept em

ber 10, 2 003 , he in terviewe d Roman

ette No rwoo d, defen

dant’s gi rlf rien d, at the Oak Park po lice de pa r t men t

. No rwo o d w as ad vis ed o f he r r ight s and sign ed a Mir anda waiver . Aft er seve ra l hou rs o f que st ioning, she consented to have her statemen

t videotaped. The tape and a transcri pt of her stat emen

t, which i s s um

m arize d a

b ov e, weread

m i tted i n to
evi den ce a nd th e tape was p l ay

ed f or the cour

t. Defend ant notes, cor rectly, that t he Dozi er aff idavit and t he Norwood st at ement ar e h ea r sa y. T hu s, he ar gu es , his sixth a mendment right to confront the wi

tnesses agai

nst hi m was vi olated by ad m i ss i on of th es e i tem s of ev i den ce b ec au se h e d i d n ot h av e th e op por tun i ty to
cross -ex am

i ne ei ther d ecl aran t. T his co ur t has lo ng held t hat hear say evidenc e is ad missibl e at t he second phas e of a capi

talsent encing he ar ingso long as the evi dence is relev an t and rel i ab l e. People v . Free , 94 Ill . 2d 378 , 423 (1 983). T his sta n da rd wa s c al l ed i n to que sti on by t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Cou rt ’s de ci si

on in Craw ford v. Washington , 541 U. S. 3 6, 68 , 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 203, 124 S. Ct . 1 354 , 1 374 (2 004 ), which held t hat t he hearsay statement of a wi

tness wh o is un avai la ble at tr ia l may not be adm itted ag ain st a c r iminal d efe nd an t if t he st at eme nt is t es t imo nia l in nature, un les s t he de fen da nt ha s ha d a pr io r opp or tunity to cro ssexamine the wi

tness regardi

ng t he statem

en t. Craw ford di d n ot
co nsid er wh et he rt he co nfr o nt at io n c lau se o f t he sixt h a men dme nt is ap plic ab le at t he aggravation/mi tigation phase of a cap ital se nt encing he ari ng.-36- We answ er ed t his que st ion in People v. Bank s , 237 Ill . 2d 154, 203 (2010 ), ho ldin g t ha t t he co nfr o nt at io n c lau se do es no t ap plyat t he
sec ond ph

as e of a c ap i tal se n ten ci n g h ea ri n g a n d r eaf f i rm i n g th e stan dard of relev ance a

nd r el i ab i l i ty. A t the se con d ph as e of a capi tal sen tenci ng he arin g, the ordi

na ry rules of evi dence are rel

axed so thatthe j ury

and/or the

tria l courtma y have t he full es t information po ssibl e with resp ect to the de fendant’s li fe, character, crim

in al record, and the circum

stances of the

particular off ense. People v. Kliner , 1 85 I ll. 2d 8 1, 171 (1 998 ). As no t ed, t he
o nly requirem ent for the adm

is si bi li ty of ev ide nce a t t his p has e o f a capi talsent encing he ar ing is tha t t he evidenc e be r elevant and rel ia ble. T his de t er minat io n r es t s w it hin the sou nd di screti on of th e tr i al cou rt. People v. Caffey , 205 Il

l . 2d 52, 1 25 (20 01). In t he pr ese nt cas e, t he con ten ts o f th e D ozi er af f i da v i t wereb oth
re levant and r elia b l e. The af f i da v i t prov i de d th

e c our t wi th ac cu ra te i nf orm ati on taken f rom of fi cial rec or ds r ega rd ing defend ant ’s long crim in al hi story, eviden ce that tend s to neg ate one of the statutory mitigat ing fact ors. See 720 ILCS 5/9–1(c)(1) (West 2002) (the fact that a defe

n dant h as n o si gn i f i ca n t h i sto ry of pri or c ri m i n al acti v i ty
may be use d asa m

i tig ati ng f actor). Defend ant ar gu es t ha t No rwo o d’ s s t at eme nt wa s no t r elia ble because his own statements to the polic e i m pli cated h er i n the burgl

ary and murder an

d, thus, he argue s, sh

e h ad a “ pow er f ul i n cen ti v e to pla ce all of the bl am e” on him . He cites Lee v. Illinoi

s , 476 U.S. 530, 541, 90 L. E d . 2d 514 , 5 26, 106 S. Ct . 2 056 , 2 062 (1 986 ), for t he pr opos i ti on th at th e n atu ral de si reto ex on erate o ne se lf when t alking to the pol i cemakesthe

sta tem en t of a c od efen

dant pr es ump t ive ly
unr el i ab l e. Leeis inappo site . I n t hat cas e, t he de fendant challenge d t he ad m i ss i on of a codef

en dant’s conf

essi on as sub stantiv

e evi dence agains t hi m a t t rial in a noncapi

tal case. A

t t hat tim

e, a hearsay st at ement could b e adm

itted a ga in st a crim

in al defen dant wi thout violat ingt he co nfr o nt at io n c lau se so lo ng as t he st at eme nt me t an exce ption t o t he he arsa

y ru le a nd t he st at eme nt wa s s uffic ien t ly
r elia ble t o w ar ra nt its “

untestedadm

is si on.” Lee , 476 U.S. at 539, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 525, 106 S. Ct. at 2061, citi ng Ohio v. Rober

ts , 448 U.S. 56, 65, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 607, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2538-39 (1980) , abrogated by Craw

ford v. Washington , 541 U .S. 36, 1 58 L. E d . 2d-37- 177, 124 S. Ct . 1354 ( 2004). The Co urt h eld in Lee t hat t he code fendant ’s statement “as the confe ssion of an ac compl ic e, was pr es ump t ive ly

unr eliable and t hat it d id no t bear sufficient indepe ndent ‘i ndici a of rel

ia bi li ty’ to overcome thatpresum ption.” Lee , 476 U.S. at 539, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 525, 106 S. Ct. at 2061. In the pre sent c as e, N orwood i s n ot a co defen

dant and h

er vi deotaped statement wasnot a confessi on. She was n ot ch

arge d w i th any cri me i n c onn ec ti on wi th the bur glary and m urder. Other than he

r frank admissio n t o illegal dr ug u se a nd as sis t ing de fen da nt in so me earli er burglaries , the only

evi dence that mi ght have i mpl ic ated her in t he cr imes of which d efenda nt was acc use d wa s her po sses sion o f the stolen watch, sungl

as ses , and ey

egl asses. Her ex

pla nation tha

t defend ant gave t hese items t o he r is ent irely plausible. In a ddit ion, no p hy si cal evi dence conn

ects her to t he cri

me scene a nd there is no evi dence at al l of more th an one i ntr ude r. A l l of the ev ide nc e is
co nsist ent wi

th h er v ers i on of the even ts, i nc l udi ng de f en da nt’ s u se of t he bl ac k duf f l e b ag an d the s al e of the sto len

computer s to Hoskins. The only suggestion that sh

e was i nvol ved i n an y way was m ade b y de f en da n t. Thus, i t is def endan t wh o a t t empt ed t o s hift so me of t he bla me to Norwo od, perhaps i n an eff ort to underm

in e her cred i b i l i ty if sh e sh oul d te sti f y as a wi tn es s a gai n st h im . We c onc lude t hat t he trial court did n

ot abuse i

ts discret io n in ad

m i tti n g h er sta tem en t, whi ch was su ffi cient ly reliable, re levant t o his c ond uct in the i m med i ate af ter math o f t he br ut al mu r de ran d h is menta l sta t e in the day s f oll owing, an d tended to show his

la ck of rem orse.

V. Death Penal

ty as Excessi

ve Sen tence Defend ant argues that the de ath pen alt y is e xc es sive , giv en his i mpove rish ed and neglected childhood , his n onviolent crimi

nal hi st ory, his drug addiction, hi s wo rk h i story , a nd t he fact t hat he has been a model pri sone r si nc e hi s arre st f

or thi s cri me . He as se rt s t hat a life
sen t ence wo uld p er manent ly pro t ect so ciet y from his act ions in t he f uture an d a sks th i s c our t to v ac ate

h i s dea th sente nc e a nd rem an d f or a new sen tenci ng he arin g at whi ch a l

esser sentence wil l b e i mposed. The Sta te po ints t o t he viciou sness of t he crim e, defen dant’s l ack of re mor se, and o t her evidenc e in agg ra vat ion, including the fact t hat he wason m

andatory supervised

re lease a t t he t ime of t he mur der , a nd-38- argues that t hi s evi

dence f ar ou t we igh s t he “p au cit y o f ev ide nc e in
m i tig ati on.”Th

us , the S tate

asserts, the trial

court reached the proper and jus t conclusi on when it sen tenced def

enda n t t o de at h a nd t his court should aff

irm the sentence

. The applic abl

e statut e provides

that t hi s court “may

overturn” a de ath sentence , without respect to an y proc ed ura l grou nd f orreversal
ortrial er ror, i f we f i n d th at th e de at h se nt en ce is “fu nd ame nt ally unj ust as appli

ed to the part icul

ar case.” 720 ILCS 5/9–1( i) (West 2008)

. Thus, “[w] hen r equ est ed t o d o s o, t his co ur t re views t he evi dence in aca pit al s en t en cin g h ea ri n g to dete

rm i n e w h eth er de ath is the appropriate penal

ty, even i n th e a bs en ceof trial error. ” People v. Thompson , 222 Ill . 2d 1, 36 ( 200 6). Be ca us e the s ec ond

phas e of
a death penalty h

earing is “a process of e

vi den tia ry bal anci ng,” whi ch req ui res the tri er of fact to assess the credibil ity of the wi tnesses, we willnot li ghtly overt urn t he tr ier of fact’s deci sion. Thompson , 22 2 I ll. 2d at 35. How ev

er , w e wi l l

con duct a “thorough and caref

ul rev ie w, considerin

g the ci rcumstances of t he cr imes and t he char act er of t he defend ant to determ

i ne wh ethe r t he death pen al ty i s ap propriate.” Thompson , 22 2 I l l . 2d

at 3 6. Our go al is to “ensure that o nl y those des er vingof

th e ul ti mate penalty are so sentence d.” Thompson , 222 Ill . 2d at 35. Because of the “ i

ntense s cru

tiny ” ( Th ompson , 222 Ill . 2d at 35) required, we sum

marize t he evide nce o f agg ra vat ing and mit igat ing f actors i n de tail

. At th e e l i gi

b i l i ty phase h earin g, the Stat e m

oved to rea dm i t al l of t he evi den

ce a nd e xh i bi ts that we re util ized a

t trial . The

courtnoted t hat it w as allo we d t o co nsid er all s uc h e vid en ce an d e xhib it s in sent encing and, wi

thou t objec t ion by t he de fendant , a llowed t he
moti on. T hu s, t he fac t s a nd cir cu mst an ce s o f t he cr ime , descr ib ed ab ove, w ere pr

operl y cons i dered

i n s en tenc i ng. The Sta te began i ts c as e i n a ggr avati on w i th a su m mary of defendant’s ex

ten si ve cri m i na l hi story . His f i rs t con v i cti on f or burg l ary occurred in

Ill i noi s i n 19 81. He

was18 y ears old. He was se

ntenced to 18 mon

th s’ prob ati

on , but v i ol ate d p rob ati

on l es s th an 4 mont hs l ate r a n d w as se n ten ce d to 3 yea

rs ’ i m pri son men t. Seven months after he was paroled, he

was convi

cted of attempted felony burglary i

n Tenn essee and sen

t ence d t o o ne year in priso n.-39- Later, wh ile o n p ar o le fo rt his of f ense , h e w ascon

vi cte d of a ca rr ying a da nger ou s we apo n and a gain given p ro bat ion. At age 24, he wa s co nvicte d in Ark ansa s o f burg lary, t heft , a nd
ars on and giv en a 21-year sentence, with 12 y ears susp ended. Four years lat er , he wa s o ut o f pr iso n a nd ag ain co nvicte d o f burg lary and
sen tenc ed to f

i ve years ’ prob ati on. In 19 93 , h e p lea de d g uilt y t o t heft in Ill in ois an d was se n ten ce d to four ye ars’ i mprisonm ent. He was re leased in 199 5. Ninet een mo nt hs after his r ele as e, he ple ad ed gu ilt y t o r es ide nt ial burgl ar y an d a rs on and was sentenced to 15 years’ im prisonm ent. His gui

lty ple as to t wo addi tional resi dentia

l b urglary charges resul

ted in two addi

tional 15- ye ar concurre nt sentences. He w as r elease d fro m priso n on J une 12, 2002. He wasstil l

on m andatory supe rvised re l ea se onJul

y 31, 2003, when he com m i tted th e m urder of whi ch h e now stands conv

icted. He
was ch ar ge d w it h five ad dit io na l re sid en t ial bu r gla ries after he was convi cted in the present cas e. De f

en da nt s tate d to the p rob ati

on off ic er who prepared

t he pr ese nt ence invest igat ive rep or t t hat he had been “out i n the worl

d” f or a total of

three years bet wee n t he t ime he
wa s 1 7 a nd wh en , at ag e 4 0, he mur de r ed Ca t he r ine Mc Avin ch ey. El iza b eth Touh y Ma sters on

test if ied that on August 28, 200 3, she
was a me dic al s t ud en t , living alo ne in a n apartmen

t in F orest Par k, I ll in ois. At approxim

ately 5 p.m. on that date, she returned home, ent er ingthe apartmen

t t hrough the ki

tchen door. She found p las t ic grocery bags st re wn abo ut t he kit chen. On en t er ing t he living r o o m, she sa w t hat t he fr ont d oo r had been kicked in an d her stereo , CD play er, su i tc ases, an

d other i tem s w ere sp rea d on the l i vi ng room f l oor. In her b edroo m, the dress er drawers had b een pul le d op en. She left the apartmen

t and calle d

911. Several

pi ece s of he i rl oom j ewel

ry had be en t ak en , alo ng wit h ne we rjew elr y , he r flute , he r CD s and DVDs, some l

iquor, and som

e cash. L ater, she vi si

ted s eve ral pawn shops in an ef fort to locate some of

her bel ongin gs. She f ound a neckl ace t hat had be long ed t o he r g re at aunt and her f lute, whi ch was ide ntif ie d by a seri al num ber, at a pawn

sh op in Nort h Ri

versi de, Ill in ois. She di

d not locate any

of the others t olen it ems. D efenda nt
was ev en tual l y ar re ste d a n d ch arge d w i

th the b urgl ary of Mast erso n’s ap ar tmen t. T ha t ca se wa s p en din g a t t he t ime o f the sent encing heari ng.-40- D et ect iveJuan Pal

adi nes of the Oak Park poli

ce departmen

t testifi ed re gar ding a bu rg lary t hat oc cur re d o n June 24, 199 3. The door to the resi dence

had b een f

orced open and j ewel

ry v al ued at over $10,000 wa s ta

ke n. Th at s am

e day , an i ntr ude r f orce d ope n th e door of another re si den ce , but f

l ed wh en h e s aw th at th e oc cu pa n ts were at home

. An

ot her si mi la r burgl ary occurred i

n Oak Park on Jul

y 15, 1993. The do or was for ced op en and a co in collect ion wa s st olen. Defend ant su

b se qu en tl y pl eade d g ui l ty to two cou

n ts of theft for t hese cri mes. Det ect iveRogerGr iv et t i of t he Oa k P ar k po lice dep ar t ment testifi ed that he i

nve stigated a burgl

ary that occurred on February 9, 199 5. Afte r t he victim left fo r w or k in t he morn i ng , th e re ar d

oor of his house was ki

cked i n. The h ouse was ransac

ke d and jew elr y, cu rr en cy, and o t her it ems w er e s t o len. La t ent fi ngerp ri nts were re cov ered an d on e w as i den ti f i ed as b el ongi ng to def en da n t. Gri v etti also i n v esti ga ted a res i den

ti al ar son th at occu rre d on Feb ruary 15, 199 5. The oc cup ant of t he ho use enco unt er ed d efenda nt
on he r f ron t po rc h a s she w as leaving for wo rk . H e claimed t o be
res pon ding to an advertisem

ent placed by

a person named Roberts. Sh e t o ld hi m that sh e h ad n ot pl ac ed such an ad an d c on ti n ue d on to work. When she r et ur ned ho me, she dis covered poli ce and f i ref i ghters on the s cen e. A fir e had ex

tensi vel y da ma ged the fi rst floor of her home

. A se ar ch r ev ea led t ha t t he do o rha d b ee n k ic ked in and t he upstai rs ransacked. A

go ld w at ch an d fu rco at we r e a mo ng t he it ems t ake n. A late nt fing er pr in t take n f rom a s af e i n a n u ps tai rs be droom
ma tched the defe ndan t. The fi re was sta rte d b y a b ur n i n g c i ga re tte left
on a co uch. One membe ro f t he ho us eh o ld w as a s mo ke r , bu t he did not smok e in the home and he use d a d iff er ent bra nd fro m the cigarette b

utt recove

red f rom th e couch. On February 17, 1995, Gr iv ett i i nvest iga t ed an o t he rbu r gl ar y. A f te r th e resident le ft f

or wo rk, the front doo r of her resi dence was kic ked i n an d the house was ransacked. Jewel ry an d pocket wat ches
w eretaken , along wi

th a Son y Wa l km an and som

e curr e ncy

. Defend ant wa s a rr es t ed t ha t aft er no o n a nd t he st o len it e m s we re fou nd o n his per so n, a s we ll as a wat ch t hat had be en t ake n dur ing t he Feb ruary 15 bu rg lary and ar son . D ef en da n t pl eade d g ui l ty to the three crim es invest igat ed byGri

v etti an d w as se n ten ce d to t hre e co ncur re nt terms of 15 y ears ’ i m pri sonm en t.-41- The Do zie r af

f i da vi t wa s adm

i tted a t thi s p oi nt. Th e c onte

nts of the aff ida vi t are summ

arize d above. Wi ll ia m Ba llar d, a p at r o l ser gea nt with the O ak Park police, testifi ed t hat he had been invo lve d w it h t he invest igat ions o f the murder of Ca t her ine McAv i nchey and ot her cr imes co mmi t t ed by de f en da n t, for whi

ch ch a rges were then pen

din g. He testifi

ed
re gar ding a r es id en t ial b ur gl ar y t ha t o cc ur r ed 10 da ys aft er t he
m urder. The ba

ck door of t he ap ar t ment w as k icked in, t he ap ar t ment
was r an sa ck ed , an d it ems wer e st olen. In a ddit ion, one wee k aft er t he
m urder, an o t he rbu r gla ry o cc ur r ed in w hic h t he do o rwa s k ick ed in and co mput er s, D VDs , a nd je wel ry were taken . One of the stolen
com puterswas recovered

f rom t he sa me individual who pur chas ed t he murder victim ’s lap t o p. Fin ally, on A ugu st 2 5, 2 003 , th e b ac k door of another home was kicked

open, a DVD pl ay

er, VCR, and a

ca bl e b ox were stol en . The c ab l e b ox wasrec ove red f rom defendant’s resi dence. Mi chael Ke ati ng, a serg ean t wi th the Forest Park

police, testifi

ed that he had been t r ained a s an e vidence t echnician a nd t hat he coll ectedev i denc e a t the sc en e of a residentia

l b urglary on August 27, 2003. Th e fro nt do or of t he ap ar t ment ha d bee n kicke d in and t he apa rt ment was i

n di sarray . Jewel

ry, a VCR, a computer, and a backpack fil led wit h medical t ext boo ks w er e t ake n. A sho e p ri nt on t he door was upsi

de down, “l

ike so mebod y had mulekick ed” t he door. Defend ant was charged with that cr im e and charges against hi

m were then pen di ng. The fo llo win g d ay, Ke at ing wa s c alle d t o an o t he rcr ime sce ne, t he Ma sters on

apartment. He o bse rve d a nd do cu men t ed t he sa me “upsi de do wn” sho e pr inton th

e door. Th

e shoe print was disti

nct, with crisscross es an d a s hield in the c ent er of t he pa t t er n and a ppe ar ed t o be f rom a K-Sw i ss b ran d sh oe. So me of the stolen

i tem s f rom t he se t wo cr imes we r e s ub se qu en t ly recovered from a pawn sh

op in North Ri

versi de. Surveill

ance pho t og ra phs sho wed t he de fendant and hi s mother, Fanny Robert s, as t he individuals who paw ned t he ite ms. T he pa wn slips t hat we re obtaine d fro m the p awn s hop co nt ained t he names o f defend ant and Robert s. Keati

ng recovered

a latent fi ngerprint from a recovered CD pl ay er th at had be en taken f rom Ma st er so n’s ap ar t men t

. T he I llino is Sta te Po lice Crime Lab mad e a p os itive ident ifi cat ion o f defend ant f rom th at pri nt.-42- Keat ingcontacted the

K-Swi ss com pa ny an d spoke to aproduct design ma nager, who provi ded a

pic t ur e o f a

sho e t hat made t he pr int Keat ingde sc r ibe d. A p air o f wh it e K

- Sw iss sho es mat ch in g th e pi ctureand the sh

oe prints was

recovered

fr o m de fen da nt ’s be dr o o m. Wh en defen dant was arrested

i n con n ecti on wi th t hese t wo cr imes, he admi tt ed commi

tt in g bot h burglari

es. The cou rt al so v i ew ed Nor wood ’s v i de otap ed

sta t em ent, which
was int r o du ce d v ia t he t es t imo ny of As si stant Stat e’s A tt orney Sa nt ini. The c on

ten ts o f t ha t st at eme nt ar e s umma r ize d a bo ve an d w ill not be repea ted here. The St at e’s final wit ness w as P at rick McAvinchey, bro t her of t he vic t im. Hei de nti

f i ed seve ral photogra ph s of hi s si ster and a wri

tt en vic t im im pact stat em

ent that he had prepared, whi ch were adm

itted i nto ev i den ce. He read th e statem en t al oud. Defendant’s first wit ness in mitiga t ion wa s his mot her , Fa nny Robert s. She testif

ie d t hat she had a 40-year hi sto ry of m ental i ll ness, butshe did no t kn o w h er dia gnos i s. S he was rap ed by defendant’s father when s he wa s 13 . H e wa s her “boyfriend ” fo r se ve ral y ea rs. Defend ant wasborn

wh en she was 17. W hen de f endan t was two y

ears old, she m arri ed Wa lter Ro ber t s, w ho d id no t like having de fendant around. A year lat er , she gave bi rth to a dau ght er , Fe licia, who m she hasnot seen i

n 17 y ears. Fann

y, W al ter, and Felic ia m ov ed

to Calif ornia, le avi

ng def en dant wit h her mot her . T hey ret ur ned five years l ate r. Ev en tu ally, she an

d W al ter di v orc ed an d sh e m ov ed to Ch i cago, bri ngi ng def endan t with her. She

testifi ed that he wa s p oli

te
an d in tell ige nt and that he h

ad taken care of h

er when she wa s ill

. Howev er, he h ad got ten in with the w

rong crowd and w as a “different pers on wh

en he does d rugs .” On cross -ex am

i na tion by the State , s he s t at ed t ha t she wo uld
o cc as io na lly

pa wn he ro wn jew elr y o rit ems for def endan t. He to ld h

er that th e f l ute she pa wn ed ha d b ee n g ive n t o him by the ma n he worked f orat one time , Omar K

arim. She identif

ie d hersel f i n the ph ot ograph f rom the pawn sh

op, but denied that the m

an standi ng be hi nd he rwas defend ant

. She d enied ha ving called t he po lice on s ever al oc cas ions because de f

en da nt h ad be en vi ol en t towa rds he r, i ns i sti ng tha t he took good care of he

r. She al s o de nie d t elling an emp lo yee o f fo r en sic clin ic al servi ces that de fendant kil

le d the fam

il y c at when h

e was 10 years old or that h e was

una bl e to control

his tem per.-43- Defend ant al so ca l led P ear l Pug h, Fa nny Robe rt s’ sist er . S he testifi ed that her si ster had been dia gnosed as sc hiz o ph r en ic and that she had b ee n “ in

and out” of the hospi

tal as a res

ult of h er men tal il ln ess. Sh e d es cr ibe d a family his t o ry o f men t al i l l ne ss, w i th m ore family mem bers bei ng i ll than not. A s a ch i l d, def en da nt d i d n ot kn ow his biologica

l f athe r, but did eve nt ually meet him in priso n. D efenda nt began drug use when he was very young, intr odu cing Pugh’s chi ldren to “re ef ers.” Bef ore he wa s on dru gs , h e w as“ a n

i cepers on to know,” butafter he start ed usi

ng drugs he b egan

“robbi ng an d steali ng.” Af ter his 200 2 r elease fro m priso n, he wa s i n v ol v ed wi th a church for about six mo n ths. Then h

e reuni ted with Rom

anette Norwo od and they began doing drugs together and “ the whol e thin

g started ove r, t he
ro bbing and s t ealing. ” Pu gh visite d de fendant in jail re gular ly during t he fo ur yea r s be t we en his a rr es t an d t r ial. S he f el t t hat he h

ad “cha nge d an awf ul l ot,” an d s aid that he was i nvol ved i n Bi ble study
and pray er m eeti ngs

. AlvinHill t es t ified t ha t he wa s a mi t iga t o r int he o ffi

ce o f the Cook Co un t y pu blic defen

der. He prepares mitigat ion r epo rt s for t he purpo se of

pr es en ti n g def en da n ts “i n thei r true l i ght ** * wh

o they are beyond th e cri

me th ey ar e charged wi

th.” Over the State’s hearsay objec t ion, Hil

l was allowed

to tes ti f y to th e c on

ten ts of t he r epo rt he prepared after revi

ewi ng def endan t’s school an

d prison records, as
we ll as nu mer o us so ur ce s o f info rmat io n regard ing ment al healt h,
r ec idiv ism, an d c r imino lo gy in ge ne r al. He als o in terviewe d defendant’s cousin, an aunt, an uncl e, former cowo rkers, his m other, his bi ologica

l f ather, hi s m

ot her’s f ormer husb and, a pastor, and an offi cial with the Arkansas Department of Corr ections. Hilllearne d t hat defend ant wa s bo rn w he n his mo t he rwa s s t ill a teenager and that sh e ha d been

in volv ed wi th an olde

r man, Cly

de Harris. Harris ad

m i tted “m ess i ng a ro un d” wit h her , bu t denied any sexual abuse. Thei

r relationshi

p continue d

for seve ra l years, unt il she be ca me pregnant wi

th def endant. She later married Wal ter Ro berts, who re sent ed he r illegitimat e child and insiste d o n leaving him behind when t he fa mily mo ve d t o Ca lifo rnia

. De fen da nt mo ve d in t o his grandm ot he r’s home , where approxi ma tely 20 relati ves were l

iv in g, mostof them

chi l dren whose pa ren ts were not present. The home was “e ffec t ive ly

fat her less. ” Acc or ding t o d efenda nt and one of hi s aunts, two young un

cl es sex ually abused them

both. Defen

dant dropped out-44- of school as

a 15

- ye ar-old seve

nth grader. The two IQ scor es contai ne d i n h i s gra m mar sc hool records are 76 and 83. Hillt es t ified t ha t de fen da nt ’s firs t int er ac t io n w it h his biologica l father was when

he was a bout 13 years old and h

e talked h i s way i n to
a di ce ga me b ei n g p l ay ed b y se v eral men, i n cl udi n g H ar ri s. La ter , b oth defend ant and Harri s were i n the sam e j ai l a wai ting tri al and s p ent
s everal ho ur s t o ge t he r , bu t did no t dis cu ss t he ir r ela t io nsh ip . Harri s wasconv i cted i n 19 87 of cons pi racy to comm i t mu rder. Acco rd ingto the i nf

or mat io n g at he r ed by H ill, d efe nd an t ’s o nly male role m

odel was an

olde r c ou sin, wh

o i n trod uc ed h i m to marijuana at age 12 and suggeste d t hat he make so me money by selling it at schoo l. By

age 13 o r 1 4, defend ant was using c oc aine and heroin . Hi s dru

g of choic e as an adul t has be en crack coca

i ne

. Hillf urthe r t es ti fi ed that in addi tion to his m

ot her’s di agnosed schi zophrenia, several

ot her f am il y m em bers suf fered f rom what they referred to as “t he ir a fflict io n, ” a pp ar en t ly schizophrenia. Defendant’s ha l f -si ster, Fe l i ci

a, a l so h a d sub sta n ce ab us e a n d m en tal h ea l th pro blems. She di sappeared at age 19 and h as not been h

eard f rom si nce. The f

am il y b elie ves that she i s dead bec aus e sh e was a “ drug runner.” Hillsum ma rized de fen

dant’s cri mi nal his t o ry, begi

nni ng at age 10 when he wa s ca ught st ealing a toy from a store and “off

ic ia ll y” at age 17 wh en h

e was arrested for possessi on of m arij uana. Al

though defend ant h as

sp en t th e v ast m aj ori ty of hi s adul t life i n pri son, he h

as never be en

conv i cted of arm ed rob bery , ba ttery , or ass aul

t. Acco rd ingt o Hill, defendan t’s mother also has a cri

mi nal record. She worked as a house cleaner an d stole f rom the hom

es of h er empl oyers. Sh e s pe nt so me t ime inpr ison in Ca lif or nia as a r esu lt. She also comm

itted fraud b

y rece iv in g w e l f are or oth er a ss i sta

nc e f rom t hr ee st at es simu lt an eo us ly. Hilldocumen

ted that after his rel

ease f rom pr i son i

n 2002, defend ant wa s e mplo yed by t he I llino is Departmen t o f Hum

an Services as a

caregi ver f or a paraplegic m

an, Om ar Kari m. K arim had si nce die d, but Hil

l s poke to de fen da nt ’s co wo rke r s, wh o de sc r ibe d h is work wit h Ka r im

as “ab sol utel y stel l ar.”De fen da nt co o ke d fo rKa r im, bathed and dresse d hi

m, an d cl eane d his ap ar t ment. The re wer e no alle ga t io ns t ha t he st o le f

r o m Ka r im o rab us ed him inan y wa y.-45- Fin ally, Hil

l testi fi ed regardin

g d ef en da nt ’s co nd uc t wh ile in carcerated. Hi

l l rev i ew ed rec ords f rom ev er y prison i

n wh ic h defend ant hasbeen

hel d. The records sho w t hat defend ant has be en “a model det ainee. ” He has ne ver t hre at ene d o r injure d a c or re ct ions off ic er or ot her i

nmat e. As a resul

t o f good behav

ior, he h as been giv en addi tional responsibi

li ties, such as

bei ng a trustee or servin

g as a b ar b er . In th e f our yea rsde f en da n t sp en t i n the C ook Co un t y jail
a wait ingtrial f

or t he m urder, he was not given a si ngl e disc ipl

inar y ti cket. Hil l

opi ne d tha t the l i kel i hood of f uture violence by

defend ant if he i s i n a l ocked faci

li ty i s “rem ot e.” On cross -e x am

i n ati on , the pr os ecu t or que st ioned Hill rega rd ing his de scri ption of de f en da nt’ s g rad eswh i l e i n s ch ool an d c au se d h im to acknowledge that he had m is spoken when he sai d that a C w as t he highestgrade d e fen

dant had ever earned. T he prosecut or also questioned

Hill r eg ar din g t he r ep o r t ed I Q s co r es

. Hill d id no t know whi ch particular IQ t e st was administe re d t o d efenda nt . I n add itio n, t he pro secut or called into q uest ion Hil l’s statement that defen

dant had been addi cte d to narcotics si

nce the age of

12 or 14 when

he has spe nt the m aj ority of h i s ad ul t li f e i n pr i son. Defend ant was all

owed t o make a stat emen t, without cr ossexaminat ion. His statem

en t was l ong a nd r am bl i ng i n pa rts. In sum: he asked f orco mpassio n and mer cy; he qu es t io ne d w he t he rjus t ice wo uld be ser ve d b y killing him; he wa s “s ad de ne d” by t he “d isp ar it ies ” in proceedin gs where “color alone is

t he so le fact or ” fo r se eking t he de ath pena l ty ; h e c l ai med tha t the “ su pervi sor of the pros ecution off ic e *** il le gally coll ectedevi dence an d testifi ed un et hic ally” at his t r ial; he admi

tt ed that he was “ flawed,” bu t i ns i ste d that he w asnot “ev il ”; he des cr ibed t he wo rk he did w ith Kar im; he ques t ioned t he
con sti tuti on al i ty o f t he de at h p en alt y; he de sc r ibe d h is tran sf orm ati on f rom “ a b roke n m an wi thou t sp i ri t” to s omeone who fou nd “God’s grace” while incarc er at ed; he ask ed that those

who fe l t ang er toward h im fin d fo rg iveness; he acc use d t he St at e o f era sing t ape s; and he asserted that t he l aw has “ two stan dards ,” one

f or th e ri ch an d one f or the p oor and th

at he wasa vi cti

m of th i s dispa ri ty. His st at ement mini

mally ack now ledge d his re spo nsibilit y f or t he brutal m urder of Ca th eri n e M cA v i n ch ey. A t on e p oi n t, he cl ai med to be “re morsef ulto all pa

rties i nvol ved,” al though this

remark was addressed as m uc h to his fa mily

me mb ers as to t he v

ictim ’s f am il y. He-46- off ered “a special m

essage for the victim’s

family, ” in whi

ch h e talked about t he po we ro f “a dv er sit y” to “m ake u s b etter” and told them that “gri ef a n d s orro w wi l l

al wa y s p as s i n ti me. ” D ef en da n t aske d th

e victim ’s mot her t o “find t he strength to forgive m e wi thout j udgi

ng,” and he cl ai me d to have fel

t her pain and heartac he and t o be “livi ng [he r] l oss .” H e tol

d her th at “ y ou w i l l f or ev er be a p ar t o f my life in
remem brance of si ns com mi tt ed agai nst y ou and y our fam il y.” The pr os ecu t or ’s clo sing ar gument foc use d o n t he ci rcumstances of the cr im e, co ntra sted with defendant’s la ck of rem orse, not in

g that his statem

en t to t he court re vea led t ha t he “t hink s t his t hing is o nly about him. ” S he r ev iew ed t he de t ails o f t he cr im e, empha sizing t he brutal ma nne r in whi ch def endan t beat, stabbed, and sawe d at t he f lesh of a w o man wh o wa s t o t ally in capaci tated and who was in

no way an o bst ac le to hi s escape

f rom th e sc ene of wh at, un til he attacke d he

r, was a simple bur glar y. She recou nted t he last moment s o f Cat her ine McAvi nchey’s li fe f rom her poi

nt of vi ew and no t ed t hat defend ant
was so unaf

fect ed by wha t he had do ne t hat he t oo k so me of t he stolen money, bou ght a lot t er y ticke t , a nd t hen pa rt ied wit h t he win ni ngs. W i thi n a matter of

da ys , d efenda nt re sumed co mmi t t ing burglari es, apparently

unconcern

ed that he m

igh t en co unter another resi dent at home. The prosecuto r then exa

mi ned each of the sta

tuto ry mitigat ing factors, one

by on e, and c onc luded by arg uing t hat while the defen dant had of

f ere d s ome evi

denc e of m i ti ga ti on, the m i ti ga ti on evi dence should ca r r y “ l i

ttl e or n o we i gh t” a nd tha t i t wa s n ot
su ffic ien t t o pr ec lu de imp o sit io n o f t he de at h p en alt y. Defens e cou

n se l ackn owl ed ge d th at the cr ime committ ed by defend ant wa s “

h orri f i c, ” b ut u rg ed th e c our t n ot to i m pos e th e dea th pen al ty because defen

dant is not t he “worst of

the worst.” H e i s n

ot
a se r ial k iller , o ra s ex ua l pre dator , or a drug kingpi n wi pin g out witne sses to prot ect his b us ine ss

. I n 2 00 3, de fen da nt wa s “a pa t he t ic
crack-head th

i ef .” Cou ns el ref erred to de f en da nt’ s chi l dhood an d h is model beh avi or whil e i n pri son. Counsel

argu ed th at “ [s ]oc i ety

does not ha ve t o kill R o dn ey Ad kin s t o pr o t ec t it se lf fr o m him, ” a nd t ha t if he is im prisone d for lif

e he m igh t eventually

“see tha t it wasn’ t about him, it wa sn’ t ab o ut his ski n, b ut i t was a bout wh at he did.” Counsel also argued that the v i cti m ’sf am i l y would ha

ve closure i f he were sentence d t o nat ur al life in p ris o n, but no t if h e we reto s i t on de ath-47- row f or years , f i l i ng a ppea l s an d obtai ni ng s tays of ex ecuti on. The Sta te responded

t hat t he de at h pena lty is not re ser ved fo r t he

“ worst of th e w ors t,”b ut is to b e i m pos ed on de f en da n ts who hav e been f oun d e l i gi bl e f orthe death

pen al ty i f the f actors i n a ggr avati on areno t o ut we igh ed by t he mit iga t ing fac t o r s. T he mi ti g at io n in t his
case “b arely

exi sts.” T he bru

t alit y de fen da nt inflict ed o n t he vic t im bel ie s his c laim

that he i s not vi olen

t. His repeated crim

es of residentia

l bur glary and arson demonstrat e a wil li ngness to do violence to o thers. Af ter kil li ng the v ictim, he comm

itted at least three m

ore residen

tial burglari es, only

the residents “we re l

ucky enough n

ot to be there .” Defe ndan t has shown

no remorse f

or what he did;he asks

for m ercy wh en he gave no me

rcy

. No t ingthat it had revi

ewed and consi

dered the evi

dence at t r ial, t he evi dence at th e s en ten ci n g h ea ri n g, t h e c on ten ts of the presen

tence inves t ig at ion, de fen da nt ’s st at eme nt , an d t he ar gu men t s o f co un se l, t he t rial co ur t fou nd

th ere w as n ot s uf f i ci en t ev i den ce of m i ti ga ti on to preclude the death penal

ty. The court im

posed asente

nc e of de ath f or t he m urder and concu

rrent s en ten ce s of 30 y ea rs an d 15 yea rs f or ho me i nv asi on an d res i den tia l bur glary . The courtdenied defendant’s subse quent motion to reconsi der sentence. Bef ore this court , defendant argues t hat altho ugh he i s g ui l ty of mult iple bur glar ies, he attempted to burgl ari ze on l y resi den ces wh ere he was sure no one was at hom e. He cla ims t ha t be fo r e h e k ick ed in t he door o f Ca

therin e McAv in chey ’s apartme

nt on Jul y 31, 2003, Norwood rang the door bel

l repea tedly to ensure that no one was at home. He p oint s t o t he evide nce o f his diff icult childhoo d and t o t he la ck of evi dence that he h

ad ever i nj ured an y oneprior t o k ill

ing t he vic t im i n th i s c as e. F i

na l l y , h e a rguestha t the “ most i m por tan t” evi dence in mi tigation was thathe fun ct io ne d e xt r eme ly we l l i n pri son and w ould n ot b e a danger to any one i f s entenced to “a sub stantial term of impr iso nme nt

. ” H e c it es se ve r al c as es in w hic h t his court has vacated a sen

tence of death an

d urges us t o do t he sa me inthis case. The Sta te responds by again de t ailing the vicio usne ss o f the cr ime and the h orror f

el t b y th e v i cti m as sh e l ay pa ral y ze d, h el pl es s to defen d hersel f as defen dant beat and s t abbed her , sa wing at her neck
so vici ously

that he nearl

y de capi tated her. He has s

hown “abso lut ely
no remorse”and his lo ng cr imi nal histo ry include s t he for cible felony of ar so n (7 20 I LCS 5/ 2–8 (Wes t 200 2) (d efining “fo r cib le f

el on y ” to-48- in cl ude ar so n)) and t he in

herentl y v iolent crim

e of resi dentia l bur glary (720 ILCS 5/9–1(b)(6)(c) (West 200 8) (d efining “inherent ly vi olent cri me,”for purpose of consideration as an ag gravat i

ng f ac tor f or ca pi tal se n ten ci n g, t o i nc l ude re siden

tia l bur glary )). He con ti n ue d to
co mmit resi dentia

l b ur gla ries af ter th e m urder, a pp aren tl y wi l l i n g to
r isk t he po ss ibilit y o f en co un t er ing an o t he rvic t im at ho me. Mu lt iple past impriso nments have no t r eh ab ilit at ed him. Fi na l l y , hi s rec en

t good be ha vi orwhi le in carcerated should b e vi ewed w it h sk ep t icis m, esp ec iallybe ca

us e the m

urder wascom

m i tted w he n h e w ason mandatory

sup er vised r elease . T his brut al crime r evea ls how t he defend ant behave s whe n he f eels t hat there is

no way out . He can maint ain a facade of compl ian ce only so l ong a s h

e h as th e p oss i b i l i ty of release. A

se n ten ce of n atu ral l i f e i n pri son wi th out th e p oss i b i l i ty of paro le would rem

ove the o nl

y thi ng rein in g in hi s violent im

pulses. In his rep ly brief, he disp ut es t he St at e’s d esc ript ion o f the violen ce o f t h e mur der , a rg uing t hat t he evide nce s how s o nly eight brui ses an d e igh t ab r as io ns o n t he vic t im, as oppo sed to the “dozens” of brui ses an

d abrasi ons m entione d by t h e St at e. He a rg ues t hat t he evi dence doe s n ot s uppor t the Stat e’s ass ertion that the victim was “e xt en sive ly

beaten” and notes t hat the pat hologist testifi ed that t hese in juri es “co uld be” co nsist ent wit h being pu nched and be at en, not t hat they wer e nec essa rily cause d by being pu nched and beat en. S imila r ly, he dispute s th

e ev i den ce

th at t he k nife wo und o n t he vict im’s hand
was evidenc e t hat she was consci ous and d esp er at ely tr ying to defend he r se lf from the knife attack. He characterizes the pa thol og ist’s t est imony that t he wound “ could b e” a def ensi ve wound an d t ha t it
wa s “ a p o ss ibilit y” that the vi ctim ’s hand was i

nj ured whi

le she tri ed to ward of

f the a ttack as “e qui voca l ” an d “ i nc oncl usi ve .” The si x cases ci ted by defen dant in whi ch thi s court has vacated a sentence of dea t h ba sed on t he cha ra ct er of t he o ffender and t he ci rc um sta nces of the off ense ( Thompson , 2 22 I ll. 2d a t 36) offer no supp ort fo rhis a r gu men t t ha t t he de at h se nt en ce is exces sive in t his
case. In People v. Smith , 177 I ll . 2d 53 ( 1997), the defendant was a
woman who hi red another to kil

l the w i fe of her married l

over. Al thought he vic t im wa s k illed in a brutal m

ann er in front of her

m i nor childre n, t he de fendant had n o past crim

in al record and the record was
repl ete with e vi dence of her good char act er . S he had beco me pr egna nt-49- and her l ove r b rok e hi s promi se to leave h is wif e for her. She ac

ted out of je al ousy an

d rage, in the bel ie f that if the wi fe we

re gone, her pr o ble ms wo uld be s olved . As abho rr ent as h er cri me was , thi s court concl uded that he r i nv ol ve men t i n th e m urder was“ an

ab errati on bro ught on byspecial

ci rcu m sta nc es , wh i ch i n a l l l i ke l i hood wi l l not be repeated.” Smith , 177 Il l . 2d at 10 1. In People v. Blackw

ell , 1 71 I ll. 2d 3 38 ( 199 6) , t he de fendant was visiting fri

ends i n Jolie t, wh ere he h

ad liv ed bef ore his older brother
was kille d b y ga ng membe r s a nd he an d h is fa mily mov ed to Mis sis sip pi. He ha d no cr imi nal rec or d, no histo ry o f violence, and no pri organg invo lve men t

. He ca rr ied a g un , ho we ve r , be ca us e o f his fear of g angs. He

and hi s f ri ends a ttende d a pa

rt y where they
un ex pe ct ed ly

enco unt er ed a gr ou p o f gang members. A fi ght broke out. As they trie d to le av e, he pul

l ed h i s gun and f i re d 14sh ots i n to t he gr ou p o f gang members, killi ng fo ur peo ple and wo unding t wo . As seri ous as his crim

es were , th

i s c our t con cl uded th at th e dea th pen al ty
was in appro priate because o f his r ela t ive ly blame les s life pr io rt o t his
one expl osi ve epi sode. Blackw

ell , 171 Il l . 2d at 36 4. In People v. Leger , 1 49 I ll. 2d 3 55 ( 199 2) , t he de fendant was an em oti on al l y unsta b l e m an wh o, f i v e day s b ef oreth ei r di v orc e w as

to be fina l, murdered h

is estranged wi fe. He t hen dr ove t o a neighbo ring
cou n ty and shot hi s f

ormer wi fe an

d her new hu sband , k ill

ing her and
wo unding hi

m. He h ad a hi story of serious medi

cal pr oblems r esu lting f rom a workplace i

nj ury i n wh i ch h e l ost b oth l eg s. His m

en tal sta te
was af f ec ted by the com bi na ti on of hi s p res cri ption medicat ions a nd alc o ho l. Heha

d n o hi story of seriouscri

m i na l ac ti vi ty , as i def rom two ba ttery convi ctions rel ated to ma

rital di sc or d, and his background, pri ort o his inju ry, in

cl uded excel le nt mi li tary and work records. Under these ci rcumstances, thi s court found the de ath sen t ence t o be
ex ces si ve

. Leger , 149 Ill . 2d at 411. In People v. Johnson , 128 Ill. 2d 253 (1 989 ), t he defen dant was fi redfro m hi s j ob , fo r a re aso n he t hou ght unfair. He w as d rinking wh en h e p h on ed

h i s f orm er em pl oy er to in quire about pic

kin g up his fi nal pay check an d was told that there was no check f or him. He used drugs t hat aft er noo n and carried a gun. It was in this co ndit ion t hat he deci ded t o go ba ck t o his e mplo yer ’s t o ge t “his du e. ” W he n his form er su pe rviso rsa id h e h ad no mo ne y fo rhim, the defe ndan t pulled his g un. The sup er visor dar ed him t o s hoo t . H e killed o ne man and-50- in jured two o thers. Prior to that t ime, t he de f en da nt h ad be en a g ood st ude nt and a rel

ia ble em ploy ee. He had

no hist or y of violenc e and he expresse d remorse for his cri m es. Thi s court co ncl uded that he was not “ the ty peof pe rs on w ho s hou l d b e p erm

an en tl y el i m i na ted f rom soci ety .” Johnson , 128 Il

l . 2d at 28 1. In

fact, one of his su rviving vic t ims test ifi ed o n h i s b eh al f , s tati n g th at h e sh oul d n ot b e put to de ath and t hat if he had died , he wo uld have wanted one of the other
me n to argue that de ath w as n

ot appropriate. Johnson , 12 8 I ll. 2d at 282. In People v. Buggs , 112 Ill . 2d 284 (1 986 ), t he de fendant an d h is wife argued after one of h er boyf rien ds persi stently

calle d their h ome. Dur ingt he a rg ume nt , t he w ife to ld de f enda nt t hat he wa s no t t he f ather of two of the i r s ons . He

be ca me enr ag ed , pou ri ng ga sol i ne on his wif e and the stai

rway. He l

it a m at ch and fled . H is wife and o ne ch ild d ied in

t he r esu lting f

i re. Th e def

en da nt h ad no prior hi story

of seri ous crim

in al activ ity . He ha d s er ve d h o no r ab ly i n th e m i l i tary f or 21 yea rs . F inally, if notfo rt he mar it al d isp ut e t ha t t r igg er ed “t his tragi c se qu en ce o f ev en t s, ” h e “ wo uld pr es uma bly be lea din g a lif e acceptable to o ur society .” Buggs , 112 Ill . 2d at 295. People v. Carlson , 79 I ll. 2d 564 (1980), was f actual l y si m i l ar to Buggs , except

that t he def

endan t kil le d not o nl

y h is ex-wife, b

ut also
a police off ic er. He was sent ence d t o a t er m of 50 t o 1 00 yea rs fo r t he murder o f his ex-wi fe and to death f or the m urder of the of f i cer. Ca rl son an d h is e x- wife we r e p lan ning t o r ec o nc ile when she i nf ormed hi m that she ha d a ne w b o yfrie nd

. La t er , he dr o ve by t he ho me they had p re viou sly share d and saw an unfamiliar ca r in t he dr iveway and he co nsider ed s et t ingf

i re to the house. Wh

en h e l earned that she h

ad becom e engaged to the boyf

rien d, he sh ot her mult iple tim

es and s et f i re to the house. He went to a bar and be gan to drink. Several hours l ater, th re e p oli ce of f i cersan d a n as sista n t Sta te’ s A ttorn ey ca me to arrest hi m. W hen confronted, he pul

le d a g un f rom his waist band a nd began fi rin g. One of the o ffice r s la t er died o f bullet w ou nds t o t he ch est. Carlson , 7 9 I ll. 2d a t 572 -7 3. In vacat ing t ha t se nt en ce , t his courtn oted

th at th e def en da n t had n o si

gn i f i ca nt h i story of pri or crim in al act ivity and

t ha t t he mur de ro f his w ife, wh ich o cc ur r ed o nly hours bef ore t he sh

oot in g of the off

ic er, was not prior crim in al
ac t ivit y. Ra

th er , b oth kil l i ngs were “p ar t o f o ne un fo r t un at e a nd t r ag ic
eve nt.” Carlson , 79 Ill . 2d at 588. I n addi tion, the def

endan t had-51- suf fered two heart at tacks and several serious i nj uries r eq uiring surg ery i n th e tw o yea rs pri or to the c ri me s. He had “deteriorated ph ysic ally and em ot iona ll y” and h e was no long er cap able “o f leading
a co mplet e and fulfillin g li fe f or a man i

n hi s earl y f ort ie s” and was “ex tre mely dis traught.” Carlson , 79 Ill . 2d at 589. I n addi tion, af ter killi ng h i s wi f e, th e def en da n t was ne ve r t he les s c o nc er ne d a bo ut his family an d tri ed to con tac t h i s adul

t da ugh ter to g i ve he r m one y f or t he su ppor t of hi s m i nor s on. Carlson , 79 Il

l . 2d at 59 0. Thi

s court concl uded that t hese“mitigat ingci

rcumstances do not bespeak a m an wi th a malignant h ea

rt w ho m us t be perm an en tl y el i m i na ted f rom society .” Carlson , 79 Ill . 2d at 590. In contrast t o t hese cases, def endan t has an ex

tensi ve c r imin al record. He ca

nn ot cla i m to have led a re l ati

ve l y bl am eless l i f e, o r to have been reacting to a percei

ved threat o f ph

ys ic al violen ce. He kill ed
a helpless w oman, who coul d n ot ha ve pre ve nte d h i m f rom fleeing t he
sce ne. Defend ant points to no aspect of hi s character that in any way mi tigates hi s respo nsibil

ity for t his brut al murd er . H e wa s und er no pa r t ic ula remot ional st re ss and was not re act ing t o a ny per so na l t r au ma such as the end of a marriage or the loss of a job. Rat her , he murdered an i nn ocen t person who in terrupted h

i s cri m e, rather than fl ee and r isk t he po ssibili

t y that she might be able t o id ent ify him. The
sca nt ev i de nc e of mi tigation in the present ca se do es no t su fficie nt ly preclude imposit ion o f the death penal ty gi ven defend ant ’s ext ensive crim in al hi story and the b

rutal and v

ic ious n ature of hi s cri

me

. In su m, we ha ve ca r efu lly

re viewed t he r eco rd in li

ght of t he seven spe cifi c mi

tigatin g factors li

sted in the statut e. The f

irst f actor do es not appl y b ecause def

endan t has a si gni f i can t hi story of pri or crim

in al
ac t ivit y. 720 ILCS 5/9 –1(c)( 1) (West 2002)

. The second f actor do es not ap ply because defend ant did n

ot comm it the m urder while

under
an ext re me ment al

or emotional

dis turbance. 720 ILCS 5/9–1(c)(2) (West 20 02 )

. Fa ct o r s t hr ee , fo ur , an d f ive ar e r ul ed o ut by t he f

acts and ci rcu m sta nc esof thi s c as e. The

vi cti m wa s n ot a par t icipant in the def endan t’s cri mes a nd s he did not pre sen

t a threa t of de ath or h

arm to hi m . 720 IL CS 5/9

–1(c)( 3), (c)(4 ), (c) (5) (West 2002) . Defendant ’s background, whi l e unstab l e an d un derpri vil eged, did n

ot in cl ude
ex t r eme emotional or physical abuse

. 720 ILCS 5/9 –1(c)( 6) (West 2008)

. De f

en da nt, wh i l e u ne duc ate d, doesnot

su ff er from reduc ed
men tal capa ci ty. 7 20 IL CS 5/9

–1(c)( 7) (West 200 8).-52- The statut e al so instructs us t o consider a ny ot her fact s re levant to mitigat ion. Among t he au t hor ities c ited by defen dant to ar gue that t he death penal

ty i s exces si

ve i n thi s case are Skipper v. Sout h Carolina , 476 U.S. 1, 5, 90 L. Ed. 2d 1 , 7, 106 S . C t. 1669, 1671 (1986) (eigh

th ame ndm ent vi olated by excl usi on of evide nc e of defendant’s good behavio r in jail at c apit al sent encing he ar ing), and Jurek v. Texas , 42 8 U .S. 26 2, 2 75 , 49L. Ed. 2d 92 9, 9 40 , 96

S. Ct. 2950, 295 7- 58 ( 197 6) (w hen c o nsider ing sent ence of d eat h, sent encing au t ho r it y m

us t consi der de f endan t’s pr obab l e f uture cond uct i f i m pri sone d). Evidence that a de f

en da nt h asbe en a m ode l prison er d oesnot preclude imposit ion o f the dea t h pena lty. I n People v. Ballard , 206 I ll. 2d 151, 189 (2002), t he def endan t argued t hat hi s go od be ha vi or wh ile i n pr i s on demonstra

ted hi s reh

ab i l i tativ e poten tia l . This court noted t hat “go od behavio r in pr ison ne ed no t o ff set o therwise substantial

aggravating evi

dence against the def

endan t.” Ballard , 206 I ll. 2 d at 189. Quo ting Skipper , t his co ur t obs er ved t hat “ ‘[O ]ne
arr es ted for a ca pit al crime, and p ar t icular ly a convict ed d efenda nt
awa iting sentenci

ng, hasevery

i nc en ti ve to be ha ve f l aw l es sl y i n pri son if go od behavio r might ca

us e th e s en ten ci n g a uth ori ty to spare his lif

e. Good beh avi or in those ci

rcumstances would rarel

y b e predictive as to the c onduc

t of the pri sone r af ter sentence has been imposed. ’ ” ( E mph as is omi

tted.) Ballard , 206 Ill . 2d at 189, quo ting Skipper , 476 U.S. at 14-15 , 90 L. E d

. 2d at 13 , 106 S. Ct. at 1676 (Powe l l , J.,
conc urri ng, j oin ed b y Burge r, C.J., a nd R eh nqu i st, J.). In the prese n t case, t he cou rt received evidence of defendant’s conduct whi

le in carcerated as required

by Jurek. T he t rial co ur t gave thi s ev i den ce l i ttle weight c omp ared to the aggra va tin g f actors. Bef ore this c our

t, d ef en da n t ar gu es th at h e w oul d n ot pres en t a danger t o o t he rinmat es o rt o pr iso n p er so nne l if he were to be given a li fe sent en

ce , poi nti ng not on l y to hi s f our y ea rs of good b eh

av i or wh ile ja il ed awai ting tri al for m urder, but t o t he records of hi s several pr evi o us pr ison t er ms tha t demo nst ra t e his full compliance wit h t he
ro ut ineof pri son lif

e. Ho we ver, the St ate apt ly notes t hat in al

l past im prisonm ents, defendan

t has had a stro ng i

ncentiv e to be on hi s best behavio r– t he po ssibili

t y of ear ly release and parole. Ind eed , d efenda nt hasnever been

sentence d to the ma

xi mum sent ence for any crime and hasnever ser ve d t he full term to which he was s entenced. If

face d-53- wi th t he r ea lity o f a

sentence of n atu ral l i f e i n pri son an d th e c er tai n ty that he wi

ll die there, the in

centi ve f or go od behav

ior wo u ld evaporate. We, t her efo re , find t hat t he trial court need n

ot have gi ven th i s e v i den ce an y gr ea ter we i gh t. Af ter careful reviewof t he re co rd and o f the circu msta nces of t he
cr ime and the ch

aracter of th e def en da n t, we con cl ude th at th e dea th p en al ty i s the appropri ate pen al ty i n th i s ca se. W

e, the ref ore , affir m th e s en ten ce i m pos ed b y th e tr i al cou rt.

CONCLUSION For t he forego ing reasons, we affi rm defendant’s co nvictio n and de ath se n ten ce . We d i re ct th e c l er k of th i s c our t t o e nt er an order setting Tuesday

, March 15, 2011, as the date on whi ch the sentence of death shal

l b e carried out. Defend ant shall be exec ut ed in t he
ma nne rprovided b

y l aw. 725 IL CS 5/1 19–5 (We st 2002 ). The clerk of this court shal

l s end a certi fi

ed copy of the mandate in

this case to t he Di rector o f Corrections, the warden of Tam ms Correctional Cen ter, and the w arden

of the i nstituti on wh ere defen dant is confi ned.

Aff irmed.

JUSTICE K

ILBRI DE took

no p art i

n th e c ons i derati

on or deci si on of thi s case.