THIRD DIVISION MARCH 10, 2010

No. 1-04- 3660 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 01 CR 22931 ) ) LEWIS JACKSON, ) Ho no r ab le ) Fr an k Z ele zin sk i, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CECO LE MA

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Lewi s Jackson appe al s his convi ction of f irst-degree m

urder and the natural

li fe s entence of i mprisonm ent im posed as a resul

t. We agree with h

is contention that he was de nied a fa ir tria l by the a dmission o f evidence of o t her cr imi nal act s and acc or dingly reve rse his co nvictio n and
r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. Jac kso n was co nvicte d o f the 199 5 ho micide of his disa bled au nt , D or is Jack so n. At t he time of the i

ncident, Jackso n l

iv ed with Doris i

n her apartment in a Harvey senior citizens' resi dence. Doris

Jackson' s daughter Cassan dra testifi ed at tr ia l that af ter bein g unab le to contact her mot her ear lier o n No vember 2 , 1 995 , she went t o he r bu ilding at abo ut 6 p. m., ask ed t he bui ldi ng m ai ntenan ce m an to let her i

nto Dor is ' apartmen

t, and found h

er mother dead on he

r bedroom f

loor. Forensic

testim ony e stablis

hed that Doris h

ad been stabbed 30 ti

me s. Seven

teen of her stab wounds were on her arm s and h ands; those wounds and i

nj uries to her hea

d and l eg l ed1-04-3660

2

t he pr os ecu t ion's e xper t t o c onc lude t hat Do ris st ru ggled wit h her at t ack er . T he pr os ecu t ion's evi dence establi

shed that two t el evisi ons were m is si ng f rom the apartmen

t, t hat Doris usual

ly kept cash on her pers on, an

d tha t cash she had rec en

tly rece i ve d was not f ound on or nea r he r body. Pol i cei nv es ti ga tors f oun d n o si gn of f orce d entr

y at the a pa rtm en t. Tri al tes ti mony f rom m ul ti pl e wi tn es se s e sta

b l i sh ed th at te n an ts i n Dor i s J acks on ' s b

ui l di n g r ec ei v ed two c om pl ete sets of a par t ment k eys and t hat she k ept one set while leaving t he o t her wit h her ex- husba nd. The pr o se cu t io n a lso pr es en t ed t es t imo ny t ha t r ais ed a c irc ums t an t ial infe r en ce t ha t Ja ck so n, sho r t ly af ter ar ri v i n g a t a p oli ce sta ti on to an swer qu esti on s a

b out h i s a un t' s h om i ci de , dr opp ed key s i n to a b athroom

wasteba sket that were

l ater retri ev ed an d prov ed to be

key s to Dori s'apartm

en t. Afte r a rr iving at t he Ha rve y police s t at ion, Jac kso n spe nt t hre e da ys in police c ust od y and gave a t ot al of six differe nt st at ement s t o p olice a nd pr os ecu t or s. T he Ha rve y det ect ive who conducted Jackson's

fi rst t wo intervi

ews and the assi stant Stat e's A tt orney wh

o spoke t o him

four t imes the re aft er bot h t est ifi ed a t t rial t hat Jac kso n had r epo rt ed be ing awa y from Do ris' ap ar t ment on th e n i gh t of Novem be r 1, 199 5. Ea

ch wi tne ss tes ti f i ed ove r de f ense obj ec ti on th

at J ac ks on stat ed that he had been

usin g narcot ics wi

th frien ds during the period in question an d that he al so used such drugs in the hours after Doris J

ackson's body was f

ound. Bot h wi

tnesses testif

ie d that Jac kso n re po rt ed r et ur ning t o D or is' apa rt ment a t app ro ximately 10 a .m. on t he mor ning o f the homi ci de. Accordin

g to the wi

tnesses, Jacks on said in

hi s f irst f our intervi

ews that he ha

d been unable t o g et into his aunt 's ap ar t ment a t t hat t ime and t hat , a ltho ugh he had visit ed a friend w ho l i ve d i n th e s am e b ui l di ng , h e di d n

ot retu rn to Doris' ap artm en t un ti l the ea rl y pre da wn hou rs of Novem ber 3, wh en he f ound D oris ' da

ugh ter Cas san

dra an d others clean i ng th e sc ene.1-04-3660

3

Fra nk Ce ce, t he as sist ant St at e's At t or ney who inter viewed Jac kso n at t he Ha rve y sta t ion, testifi ed that Jackson chan

ged hi s story i

n hi s f if th statement. In that statement, Jackson sai d that he did e nt er Do ris' ap ar t ment w hen he r et ur ned t her e o n t he mor ning o f No vember 2 , 1 995 , a nd that he saw he

r ly in g on her bedroom f

loor with b lood all

around her. Accordi

ng to Cece, Jac kso n said t hat he had t ou ched Do ris and t ried t o r oll her ove r, t hen pa nicked and left t he apa rt ment. Cec e fur t her t est ifi ed t hat in Jack so n's sixt h cus t od ial sta t ement , he re po rt ed t hat he
r et ur ne d t o Do r is' a pa r t men t o n t he mo rning o f No ve mbe r2, bla ck ed o ut in t he ap ar t men t 's f amily
r o o m, wo ke up so me t ime la t er an d fo un d h er o n t he flo o ro f t he be dr o o m. As in his imme dia t ely pr ev io us st at eme nt , Ja ck so n sa id t ha t he ha d t r ied t o mo ve Do r is, t he n w as he d h er blo o d fr o m his hands. Cece and John Ri

zzi, the Harvey detective who conducte d Jackson's fi rst t wo interviews, both testifi

ed that they saw c

uts on Jackson's

han ds. Forensi

c testim ony pres ented at trial est ablished t hat small bl

oo d st ains no t matc hing Do ris' DN A pr ofile wer e fo und in t he t ub and t oilet of D or is' bat hro om; p ro fil es fro m tho se sa mples mat ched Jac kso n's DN A. T he jur y found Jackson gui

lty of f irst degree m

urder, and m

ade the addi

tional fi ndi ngs that the m

urder was com m i tted i n th e c ours e of

an arm ed robbe ry an d th at i t res ul ted f rom exce ptiona l l y br utal or he i nous b eh av i or i nd i ca ti ve of wa nton cruel ty . Ja ck son wa s s en ten ce d to a na tura l l i f e term of i m pri sonm en t. In o ur initial adjud icat ion o f his appe al, t his co ur t re ver sed Jac kso n's co nvictio n, ho lding t ha t he ha d b ee n u nd uly p r eju dic ed by t he ad miss io n o f ev ide nc e t ha t his D NA pr o file w as o n file i n a state da taba se. Peop l e v . Ja

ck son, 3 72 I ll. App. 3d 1 12 ( 200 7) . T his holding w as r ever sed by1-04-3660

4

ou r su pr eme co ur t , w hich dire ct ed t his co ur t on r emand t o c ons ider t he issue s left u nre so lved by our ori gi na l di sposi tion . Peop l e v . Ja

ck son, 232 Il

l . 2d 246 (2009 ). The suprem

e court, whi

le reversi ng thi s court's ruli

ng on the adm

is si bi li ty of ev ide nce regardin g Jackson' s DNA profi

le , aff irm ed our judgm

ent in all other respects. 232 Ill . 2d at 284- 85. As a r esu lt, t he su bst ant ive ru lings affirmed by the sup re me co ur t ar e law o f the cas e fo r t he i nstant ap peal and wi l l not be revi si ted. Peop l e v . Wi l son, 257 Il l . Ap p. 3d 67 0, 699- 700 (1 993). W e th eref orere af f i rm our j udgm en ts th at: (1 ) the ev i den ce

pr es en ted at tr i al wa s s uf f i ci en t to su pp ort Jacks on ' s m

urder c on v i cti on ; (2 ) p oli ce

of f i cersh ad prob ab l e c au se

f or Jacks on ' s a

rre st; (3) Jackson recei

ved consti

tut iona ll y s uff ic ie nt notice of the prosecuti on's i ntention to seek an en h an ce d s en ten ce ; an d ( 4) th e j ur

y wa s n ot pres en ted wi th suf f i ci en t ev i den ce to s uppor

t a co nvi ct io n o f a rmed r o bbe ry. Jackson contends tha

t he was deni

ed a fa ir tria l b y a prosecuto r's statemen

t during reb

utt al argumen t t hat Frank C ece, the assistant Stat e's A tt orney wh

o intervi ewed hi m a t t he polic e sta ti on, "c an be be l i eved ." W

e di sa gre e. A l thou gh a p ros ecutor m

ay not v ouc h f or a w i tne ss or invok e t he cr edibility of his o ffi ce in ar gument , he is per mitt ed t o c omment on t he st re ngt h of t he evi den ce. Peop l e v . Em

ers on , 122 Il

l . 2d 411 , 434 (1 987), People v . Yates , 98 Ill . 2d 502, 532 (1 98 3) . A

pp l y i n g th i s pri n ci pl e, Il l i n oi s c our ts h av e c on siste n tl y h el d th at pros ecuti

on argu men ts si mi la r to that at issue i

n the i nstant case are n

ot im proper: "’We know that [the witnes s] was telli ng y ou t he trut h’" ( Peop l e v . Em ers on , 122 Il

l . 2d at 43 4-35) " ’W

e kn ow [the w

i tnes ses ] are not lyi ng’" (P eo ple v. Malo ne , 211 Ill . App. 3d 628, 638-39 (1991)); "’[The wi tness] i s bel

ie vab le . *** [The witness] is correct ’" (Pe ople v . Pry or , 170 Ill . App. 3d 262, 273 (1988)). I t is thus1-04-3660

5

ap pa r en t t ha t t he pr o se cu t io n's as se ss men t o f Fr an k C ec e' s t es t imo ny in t he inst an t ca se is per missibl

e co mmentar y that canno t ser ve as a bas is for dist ur bing Jac kso n's co nvictio n. Jac kso n next ar gue s t hat he wa s de pr ived o f a fair t rial by pro sec ut ion st at ement s du ring clos ing ar gument t hat app ealed t o t he pa ssio ns and pr ejudice s o f the jury, includ ing t he st at ement that Doris Ja

cks on wa s "s crea

m i ng out f or justi ce." We

are un persuade d by

thi s arg um en t. A prosec utor is perm i tted to urge the

j ury to adm i nister j ustice. People v . Cull en , 233 Ill . App. 3d 794 , 80 0 (1 992 ); Peop l e v . Mor ri son, 13 7 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 71, 184

(19 85) . Ph

ras i ng the cal l f or j ustice a s an

i nv ocati on f rom th e v i cti m i s n ot rever si bl e error. People v . Fav

ors , 254 Ill . App. 3d 876 , 8 96- 97 ( 199 3) . I n Peop l e v . Je f f ers on , 2 57 I ll. App. 3d 2 58 ( 199 3) , t he pr os ecu t ion's c losing ar gument ask ed t he jur y to give t he vict im "hi s da y in cour t "; t his co ur t held t hat t he ar gument "m erel y en cou rage d th e j ur y to co n si der the v i cti m of th e cri me a n d h i s c on duct d

uri n g i ts deliber at ions" and w as no t re ver sible err or . 2 57 I ll. App. 3d a t 271 -7 2. We believe t hat t he Je f f ers on co ur t 's ana lysis ap plies wit h equ al for ce t o t he ca se a t bar and t hat t he pr os ecu t ion's ref eren ces to Doris Jackson i n c l osi ng d i d not deny

Lewi s Ja cks on a f ai r tri al and do not req

ui re reversa l of h i s con vi cti on. Jac kso n asse rt s t hat t he pr os ecu t ion impro per ly shi fte d t he bur den o f pro of t o him by emp ha siz ing his fa ilur e t o pr es en t r es ult s o f DN A t es t ing o f va r io us it ems fo un d a t t he cr ime sc en e, i nc l udi ng cl othe s, b eddi

ng , an d hai r. Th i s em phas i s oc cu

rre d du ri ng red i rect exam i na ti on of the prosecution's

expert DNA wi

tness an d durin g rebuttal argum

ent. These ref

erences occurre d onl

y af ter def en se cross-exa

m i na tion and cl osi ng a rgum en t hi ghl i ghte d the State's f ail ure t o s eek t est ing o f the same it ems. While t he pr os ecu t ion is ge ner ally not per mitt ed t o c omment on a defend ant 's failure t o p ro duc e evide nce, suc h co mments a re not impro per aft er a de fendant1-04-3660

6

wi th eq ual acc ess to that evi den

ce a ssa i l s the prosec uti on' s f ail ure to produc e i

t. Peo ple v. Patte rs on , 21 7 I l l . 2d

40 7, 4 46 -4 7 ( 20 05 ). In

th e i n sta n t ca se , the pros ecuti

on estab l i sh ed th at i ts DNA ex pert witness was

avai la ble to bot h Jacks on and the State and that the untested items had not been t he su bject of a n examinat ion r equ est by either par t y. The pr os ecu t ion's q ues t ions a nd ar gument on t his subject wer e pr op er re spo nses t o t he de fense's s ugg est ion o f do ubt re gar ding t he lack o f te st ing and d o no t war ra nt re ver sal o f Jack so n's co nvictio n. Jac kso n also claims tha t t he pr os ecu t ion impro per ly m inim ized it s bur den o f pro of d ur ing cl osin g argumen

t. The pro secution com

me nted: "[I]n any

case, y ou are going to fi

nd if y ou put an inve st iga t io n u nd er a h igh po we r ed micr o sc o pe t ha t t he r e is [ sic ] go ing t o be so me inc o nsis t en cie s, t he r e is [ sic ] go ing t o be so me s cr ew - up s, t he r e is [ sic ] go ing t o be so me m i stake s, the

re i s goi ng [ to be] s ome

i nc omp etency . An

d y ou know what, i t doesn't m

atter. Th at' s w hy the l aw sa y s th at the Sta te on l y has to p rov e h

i s g ui l t be y ond a re as ona bl e doubt. Not ev er y dou b t. N ot ev

er y th i n g th at th ey b ri n g u p. T h e l aw doe sn ' t sa y th at. If th e S tate h ad to crossev ery

T and dot ev ery

I i n every i nv esti gation, n obody would ever b e i

nv esti gated. Eve ry body could run

f ree a nd g o ahe ad on

a ki l l i ng s pree." A p r o se cu t o r 's imp lica t io n t ha t t he bu r de n o f pr o o f be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t is me r ely

" pro forma"

or a "m i nor detai l " i s i

m proper. People v . Frazi er , 107 Ill . App. 3d 1096, 1102 ( 19 82 ) . Ou rsu pr eme co ur t ha s e xp licit ly dis ap pr o ve d a t t emp t s by c o un se l t o de fine r ea so na ble do ub t . "R ea so nable do ub t is a t er m wh ich ne ed s no ela bo r at io n a nd we ha ve so fr eq ue nt ly discu ssed t he fut ili

t y of at t empt ing t o d efine it t hat we might expe ct t he pr act ice t o be discontin ued." Pe opl

e v . M al men ato , 1 4 I ll. 2d 5 2, 61 ( 195 8) . I n People v . Edwards , 55 Ill . 2d 25 ( 197 3) , t he co ur t , a ltho ugh finding t hat a pr os ecu t ion's a t t empt t o e xplain re aso nable do ubt1-04-3660

7

wasnot reversi

bl e error, ad

vised that the "b etter practic e" was " not to attempt to defi ne the term ‘re aso nable do ubt ' eithe r in voir dire or closi ng a rgum en t." 55 Il l . 2d at 35 . In Peop l e v . Edd

i ng ton , 1 29 I ll. App. 3d 7 45 ( 198 4) , t he ap pellat e co ur t admo nished t he pro secution for remarks in cl osing argumen

t t hat served to "de-emphasi ze the St ate's burden." 129 Ill . App. 3d at 781. The Edd i ng ton co ur t re lied upo n ot her gr ou nds fo r r ever sal o f the defen dant's conv

iction and di

d not hold that the closi

ng com me nts were reversi

ble error, but noted that t he prosecution' s attempt to descri be the b urden of proof was m

ore o bj ectionab le

than remarks ge

neral ly found to be i

nsuf fi ci ently prejudi ci al to warrant reversal

of a convi

ction. 129 Ill . A pp. 3d a t 781 . The c ourt c onc l

ude d: " W e tru st th

e p ros ecutor wi l l

not a ddr es s th e def i ni ti on of reasonab le

doubt o n retrial ." 129 Ill . App. 3d at 781. As in Edd i ng ton , t he prosecut ion's

discussi on of reaso nabl

e doubt in the instant case ex tended b ey

ond the nature of

com men ts f ound b y Ill i noi s courtsto be i

ns uf f i cien t to requi re re ver sal. I n ou r view , t he significance of "inco nsist encies, " "sc re w- ups ," "mista kes " and "inco mpet ency" in t he co ur se o f Jack so n's invest igat ion and pr os ecu t ion is t o be det er mined by the trier of f

act, and we bel

ie ve that the prosecution i

ncorrectly stated t he l

aw i n suggesting that t he r ea so na ble do ub t st an da r d ma de t he sho rt co ming s in it s c as e ir r ele va nt . I n lig ht o f t he clo se ly bal anced n ature of the evidence i

n the i nstant case, we b elie

ve that the Edd

i ng ton co ur t 's ca ut io na ry st at eme nt s s ho uld be co nsid er ed pa rt icu lar ly no t ew o rt hy o n r et r ial. Jack son also c onte

nds th at he w asdeni

ed a f ai r tri al by the pros ecution' s i

ntr oduc ti on of po r t io ns o f his c us t o dia l st at eme nt s t ha t inc lud ed r ep ea t ed r efe r en ce s t o his d rug us e. I n his six st at ement s t o p olice a nd pr os ecu t or s, J ack so n re co unt ed s ever al insta nces of d ru g us e o n t he night befo re and t he da y of Do ris Ja cks on's homicide, and t hese st at ement s we re pr ese nt ed t o t he1-04-3660

8

jury in their entirety. We agree with Jackson's contention that t he references to his drug use sh o ul d n o t ha ve be en pr es en t ed t o t he jury. Al though Jackson obj ected to the adm is sion of his statemen

ts as hearsay

, he did not argue at tri al tha t the i r re f ere nc esto hi s d rug us e w ere pre j udi ci al be ca us e they rev eal ed hi s c om m i ss i on of other crim

es, and the State argues that he has f orfei ted the right to seek revi ew of the i ssue here. However, the plai

n error doct rin

e permi ts revi ew of otherwis e forf ei ted erro rs in

crim in al trials w h ere th e ev i den ce

wa s c l ose l

y b al an ce d or wh ere th e error wa s of suf f i ci en t m ag n i tude th at the def endan t was den i ed a f ai r and i m partial tria l . People v . Vargas , 174 Il l . 2d 355 , 363 (1 996). Both pron

gs of the p l ai n error doctri

ne are s ati sf i ed i n the ca se a

t bar. In asses si ng the suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence prese

nted to suppo rt Jackson's conv iction, our init ial o pin io n st at ed : " T he r e w as no t o ve rwh elming ev ide nc e o f de fen da nt 's g uilt pr es en t ed in t his case, and in

fact we would character ize thi s as a very close case ***." Jack son, 372 Ill . App. 3d at 120. Our su

prem e court rea

ched a s i m i l ar con cl usi on: " [W]e agree wi th the appe l l ate court that t here was not o verwhel mi ng evi dence of defen

dant's guil t pr esented in thi s case ***>" Jack son, 23 2 I l l . 2d

at 2 84 . J acks on

di d n ot co n f es s to th e cri

me, n o ev i den ce con n ected h i m to the murder weapon, an

d the evi dence of hi s bl ood in the ba

throo m of Doris'apartment was mi tigated by the absence of an y other evidence of

hi s bl oo d elsewh

ere and the fact t hat he was a re sident of t he ap ar t ment. In su mmary, t he evide nce, while sufficient t o p er mit a jur y to find Jackson gui

lty of m urder, was suff

ic ie ntly cl osely bal anced to permi

t review of

ot herwi se f

orfei ted cl ai ms under the plai

n error doct rin

e. The plain er ro r d oc t rine is also pr op er ly i nvok ed in t he inst ant cas e bec aus e o f the si gn i f i ca nc e of the ad m i ss i on of ev i denc e of Jack son 's dru g us e. " Th e erron

eou s adm i ss i on of1-04-3660

9

evidence of ot her crim

es carries a hi

gh risk of prej udice and ordinari ly calls for reversal." Pe o ple v. Li ndgren , 79 Ill . 2d 129, 140 (1980). Accordin gly , such error has be en h

el d to warrant revi ew und er the plai n error doctri

ne . People v . Cham

bers , 259 I ll . App. 3d 63 1, 636 ( 1994); see also People v . McMill

en , 281 Ill . App. 3d 247, 251-52 (1996). I n vi ew of the f

orego in g, we concl

ude t ha t t he pla in e rr o rdo ct r ine allo ws su bst an t ive r ev iew o f Ja ck so n's cla ims t ha t ev ide nc e o f his drug use was i

mproperl y a dmi tt ed. E vid en ce o f cr imes fo rwh ich t he de fen da nt is no t o n t r ial is no t ad miss ible t o es t ab lish h is propensi ty to com m i t cri me. People v . Lin

dgren , 79 Ill . 2d 129, 137 (1980). Such ev ide nce m ay be adm is si ble for other purpo ses, such as proof of m

ot iv e ( Peop l e v . Robi

ns on , 167 Ill . 2d 53, 62- 63 ( 199 5) ), and in t he inst ant cas e, t he St at e ar gue s t hat Jac kso n's dr ug u se e st ablished his mo t ive f or th e cri me: h e w an

ted to rob h er f or d ru g m on ey. B ut u

n prose cu ted dr ug us e is a dm i ss i b l e to est ablish mot ive for a cha rg ed o ffense o nly after t he pr os ecu t ion has demo nst ra t ed t hat t he def endan t was a ddicted to na

rcoti cs a nd th at he l acke d the

f i na nc i al resourc es to sus

tai n h i s hab i t. Pe o ple v. Ma o un is , 30 9 Il l . A pp. 3d 1 55, 159 -60(19 99) . Se e al so People v . Kl im awi cze , 35 2 I ll. App. 3d 13, 27 (2004). Neither f act was establ

is hed i n the i nstant case. No evi

dence was int r o du ce d t o es t ab lish t ha t Ja ck so n's dr ug us e w as ha bit ua l ra t he rt ha n r ec r ea t io na l, an d h is st at eme nt s r eg ar din g h is fina nc ial c o nd it io n ind ica t ed t ha t he wa s no t in ne ed o f mo ne y at t he t ime of Doris' murder b ecause h

e had cas hed an unem ploy me nt ben efi t check. It is thus apparen t t hat t he pr os ecu t ion d id no t pr ese nt sufficient pr elimi nar y evidence t o p er mit intr od uct ion o f Jack so n's drug u se a s proof

of h i s m otive to ki l l

Dori s. The State's argume

nt that Jackson's drug use was adm is si ble to est abl

is h m ot iv e rather t han mere cr imi

nal pr op ensit y is also co nt ra dict ed by t he pr os ecu t ion's r efer ence s t o J ack so n's1-04-3660

10

conduct . In rebut tal, the pro secuto r, co mm enting on Jackson's statement that he left Doris' apartment af

ter discoveri

ng he r body, sai

d, "Incredi

bl y thi s guy doesn't go and get hel

p. He goes out and parties. He go es out and gets crack and is drinki ng until one o'clock in the m

orning." Thi s c om men t sh ed no l i gh t on th e c i rcu m sta nc esof Doris' m urder or an y pos si bl e m oti ve f or Jackson's com m i ssi on of the cri me. In stead , i

t sugge sted that he

wasa pers on of

bad ch aracter. Ou rsu pr eme co ur t ha s e xp laine d t ha t ev ide nc e o f o t he rcr imes is imp r o pe rbe ca us e it "overpersuades the j ury, wh ic h m igh t convic t t he def endan t o nl y b ecause i

t feel s he or she i

s a bad person deserving punishm ent." People v . Lin

dgren , 7 9 I ll. 2d 1 29, 137 (1 980 ). The pros ecution' s c om

men tary i n th e i ns tan t ca se wa s prec i se l

y the ba d-cha racter a ccus ati on prohib ited by

the rule aga

in st admission of other crim es to show crim

in al propensi ty. We f in d that the a dm i ssi on of evi den ce of Jackson's drug u se re qui

res re versal of h i s con vi cti on an d a n ew trial . Because of

their potential

relev ance to further proceedin

gs, we address two additi onal ar gument s ass er t ed by Ja cks on in t he inst ant matt er . H e claims t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in faili ng to i ns truct the j ury on th e def i ni ti on of "w an ton c rue l ty " b ef ore a l l owi ng i t to f i nd hi m el i gi bl e f or an en han ced pris on sentence

because hi s cri me resul ted from "ex

ceptional ly brutal or hei

nous b eh av i or i n di ca ti v e of wa n ton cr ue l ty ." W e a

gr ee wi th Ja ck son ' s c on ten ti on th at th e f ai l ur e to i nstruct the jury

on the def i ni tion of wan ton crue l ty i s error. Pe opl

e v . Sm i th , 362 Ill . App. 3d 10 62 , 10 88 -8 9 ( 20 05 ). H owev er , J acks on di d n ot ob j ect to the om

i ss i on of a w an ton cr ue l ty instruct ion at tr ial, nor d id h e subm it a prop osed defin

ition f or p resentat ion to t he j ury. As a r es ult , t he t r ial c o ur t 's f

ailu r e t o giv e t he pr o pe rinst ruc t io n c an be co nsid er ed r ev er sible er r o ro nly if the record demonstrates a risk that the j ury erroneousl y f ound Jackson el

igi ble for an en

han ced sen tenc e b eca

use i t fa i l ed to properl

y i nterpret the u

nde f i ne d term . People v . Hopp , 209 Ill . 2d 1,12 ( 200 4); Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 362 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 62, 108 8-89 (2 005). O ur rev i ew of the re cord sugge sts no s uc h r i sk . The f

oren si c evi denc e p res en

ted at tri al i nd i ca ted tha t Doris Jac ks on suf f ered n um erous s tab wounds

and sub stan

tia l i nj uries i n a struggl e to def end he rsel f be f ore rec ei vi ng the sta b woun dstha t ca us ed he r de ath . Th

i s evi denc e i s c ons i stent w

i th th e def i ni ti on of wan ton crue l ty: the c onsc i ous ef

f ort to inf l i ct pai n a nd s uf f eri ng on the v i cti m of the of f en se. Peop l e v . Ni

elson, 18 7 I ll. 2 d 2 71 , 29 9 ( 19 99 ) . T he r efo r e, alt ho ug h w e fin d t ha t t he jur y sho uld have be en inst ru ct ed o n t he de fini t ion o f want on c ru elty, we ho ld t hat t her e wa s no risk t hat t he errone ous om

i ssi on of the i nstructi on ca

use d an i m proper f i ndi ng on en ha nc ed s en tenc e el i gi bi l i ty. We there f ore f i nd th at the om i ssi on di d not req ui re a n ew s en tenc i ng h eari ng. Fi nal ly , Jackson cl

ai ms that t he trial

court should have bifurcated the gui lt and s entence enhanc ement phas es o f his tr ial becau se g ra phic au t op sy pho t og ra phs int ro duc ed t o p ro ve t he bru t al nat ur e o f Do ris Ja cks on's murd er cr eat ed a n undu e r isk o f pre judice a gainst him i

n t he co nsid er at io n o f his g uilt . We r eje ct ed t his c laim be ca us e, at t he t ime o f his in it ial t r ial, I llino is l aw di d not prov

i de f or such bi f urcati on. Jack son, 37 2 I ll. A pp . 3d at 12 6. Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 451 (g ) ( 210 Ill. 2d R. 451 (g )) , mad e effect ive aft er Jac kso n's t rial, no w gr ant s t rial co ur t s t he discr et ion t o bifur cat e t he gu ilt and sent ence -e nhance ment p hase s o n mot ion o f a par t y. We be l i ev e tha

t such di scre tion i s av ail ab l e to the trial

court on retria

l of the i nstant m atter. Fo r the f ore goi n g r ea son s, we re v er se Ja ck son ' s c on v i cti on an d s en ten ce an d r em an d to t he circ uit co ur t of Co ok Co unt y for fur t her pr oc eed ings co nsist ent wit h t his op inion. Reversed a

nd rem anded. CUNN INGHA M, P.J ., and K

AR NEZIS , J., con

cur.