FOURTH DIVISION January 28, 2010

No. 1-07- 2406
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF IL LINO IS FIRST JUDICI AL DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, Pl ai ntif f -Ap pel l ee, v. MIKE ANGEL

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

ty No. 04 CR 15743 Ho no r ab le James M ichael Obbish, Judge Presidin

g.

JU STI CEGA

LL A GH ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Defend ant Mike Ang el Maldo nado was char ged wit h first deg re e mur der in the s hoo t ing death of Ri

cardo Hernandez. Def

endan t’s fi rst t rial ended i n a h ung j ury. Def

endan t was then tried by another jury

and conv icted. The jury

al so found that defe

ndan t personall

y di scharged a fire ar m t ha t pr o ximat ely c au se d t he de at h o f He rna nd ez . De fen da nt wa s s en t en ce d t o 60 yea r s in pr iso n, 35 yea r s fo rt he mur de rch ar ge an d a man da t o ry 25 yea r s a dd ed o n fo rkilling t he vic t im with a fi rearm. Def

endan t raises three issues on appea l. F irst, def

endan t argues that he was den i ed a f ai r tri al b y th e adm i ss i on of i rre l ev an t an d i n f l am mator y oth er -c ri mes ev i den ce . N ex

t, defen dant contends that he was depri ved of a f ai r trial because the Stat e was perm

itted to bols

ter1-07-2406

2

the credi bi l i ty of i ts onl y non reca nti ng e yewi tnes s wi th ev i den ce of prev i ous consi sten

t statem en ts. Fi na ll y , de f en da nt a rguestha t he wa s dep ri

ve d of a f ai r tri al be ca us e the re pe ti ti ve i ntr oduc ti on of pr ior st at ement s made by a witne ss who re cant ed a t t rial, t hro ugh mu ltiple w itnes ses, violat ed t he
comm on la w prohibition agai

nst prior consistent stat em ents. For the reasons that follow, we
reverse and rem and f or a ne w tri al
.
BACK

GROUND Around 4 a.m . on May

22, 2004, 17-year-old Ri cardo Hernandez was

shot and kill

ed outsi de h i s home . Def

endan t was s ubs eque ntl y arrested an

d ch arged wi th Herna ndez’s m urder. His first t rial re sult ed in a hu ng jur y. At t he first t rial, t he St at e filed a mot ion in limine to i ntroduc e gan

g ev i den ce f or the pu rpose of showi ng i ntere st, bi as or m otive of a wi tnes s. Defend ant fil

ed a re ply to t he mot ion o bject ing t o t he intr od uct ion o f any gang e vidence , a rg uing that because there was n

o evi dence that the m

urder was gang-related or gang-motivated, such
ev i den ce wa s f ar morepr ej udi ci

al th an prob ati v e a n d w oul d m ake i t i m pos si b l e f or def en da n t to re ce i v e a f ai r a n d i m pa rtial trial . A t th e h ea ri n g on th e m oti on , the S tate

sa i d i t onl y ex pe cte d to in tro duce gang ev

ide nce rel ating to one wi

tness, An gel Rodriguez, who was ex

pected to chan

ge his stor y, in

or der t o explain the motive for t he change. T he St ate said that the de fendant’s br o t he rwa s a lso a me mbe ro f t he sa me g an g, bu t it ha d n o t yet de cid ed wh at t o do ab o ut him be ca us e the m oti va ti ons were “ m urk i er. ” Th e c ourt g ran ted the moti on, al

l owi ng ev i denc e of gang m em bersh ip f or t he l im ited purpose of sh

owing bias or motive i

f Rodriguez shoul

d chan ge his s t o ry at t r ial.1-07-2406

3

At t he se co nd t rial, t he St at e r eintr od uce d it s mot ion in limine se ek i ng the ad m i ss i on of
com m on ga n g a f f i l i ati on ev i den ce f or th e pur pos e of sh owi n g i n terest, b i as

or m oti v e i f two of i ts wit ne ss es , Ro dr igu ez an d J o e M ald o na do , sho uld o ffer t es t imo ny at t r ial t ha t diffe r ed fr o m t he ir gr an d ju ry t es t imo ny o rst at eme nt s g ive n t o t he as sis t an t St at e’ s At t o rne y. D efe nd an t r en ew ed his obj ec ti on. Th e c ourt a

gai n g ran ted the moti on, al

l owi ng the ev i denc e f or th e l i m i ted pur pos e of sh owi ng i nte res t, m oti ve an d b i as asto the tes ti mony of Rod riguez a nd Joe Ma l donado. Carm en Hern andez, the v

ictim ’s m ot her, testif

ie d that in the e arly

morni ng hours of M ay 22, 200 4, she a wo ke t o t he so und o f gunsho t s. S he r an do wnst airs t o he r so n’s r oo m. When she
sa w that he w asnot i

n h i s room , sh

e ra n a nd opene d the f

ron t door. H er s on f

el l thr ough the door as she op ened it; his ke ys wer e in the do or . S he ca lled t o him but he did no t answ er . H e had one ey e open and one ey

e closed and hi

s han ds f el t cold. She started screami ng f or help an d opened the outer door to the porch, but did n ot see any one outside. She then

calle d 911 and wen

t back in side the porch to look at her son. A y oung ma n sh e di d not know ran up the steps to the porch and asked i

f h er son was al

righ t. He t old he

r, “Don’t le

t him sleep, wake hi

m up,” an d nudged hi m wi th hi s f oot . Hernandez told h

im to le ave h

er son alone and aske d hi

m i f h e had see n an y thi ng . Sh e te sti f i ed tha t sh e w assc are d b ec au se

sh e th ough t he m i gh t ha ve be en the pers on who sho t her so n. S he t hen as ked him to pleas e leave t hem alone . T he you ng man left and t he po lice ar r ive d s ho rt ly t he r ea ft er . He rna nd ez wa s s cr ea ming fo ran amb ula nc e, an d t he po lice t o ld he rt ha t he rso n w as de ad an d t he y co uld no t do an yt hing fo rhim. Te sti mon y at tr i al estab l i sh ed th at H er n an de z l i v ed on Sou th Kee l er , on

a b l ock wi th hou ses o n one side o f the st re et and P iot ro wsk i Par k o n t he o t her side. The re is a de ad e nd at t he1-07-2406

4

sou th e nd of the stre et w i th s ome ra

i l road tracks . He

rnan de z te sti f i ed tha t a c ar waspa

rke d on the si deof the stre et n ex t to the pa rk a nd tha t the youn g m an wh o ran up on the porch c am

e f rom the parked car. Hernandez said she s aw a f

em al e si tt in g in the driv er’s seat of the car an

d that after she asked the y

oung ma n to leave, he returned to t he car. Af ter t he polic e arriv

ed, these two individuals we re st anding o ut side a nd she t old t he po lice to t alk t o t hem beca use t hey must have
seen s omethi

ng. Of f i cer H ernandez (n

o rel ati on to the v

i cti m ) and hi s pa rtner re spon

ded to the cal l
. Of f i cer H er n an de z te sti f i ed th at w h en th ey ar ri v ed at th e s cen e, h e ob se

rved a w h i te s por t uti l i ty vehi cle (SUV ) wi th In di ana l i cense p l ates p arked

on the side of the street next to the pa

rk. A y oung m an wasstan di ng on the s i dewa

l k acros s the

street f rom th e SUV , ne ar the

vi cti m ’shom e. Off ic er Hernandez spoke with the y oung ma n an d a y oung la dy w ho stepped out of the parked car. He wrot e down the nam es, addresses an

d phone n umb ers of both i

ndi vi dual s. Off

ic er Hernandez test if

ied that he in

tended t o give this

in formation to t he detect iv

e assign ed to the case bu t ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t he faile d t o do so . He info rmed bo t h w it ne ss es t ha t t he y nee de d t o r ema in at t he sc ene u nt il the d et ect ive co uld int er view t hem. H e t est ifi ed t hat he did no t re member t he names he w ro t e do wn, but he ident ifi ed p hot og ra phs o f Angel Ro dr iguez and J ill ian Smith a s t he two peo ple

he spoke wi

th that morni

ng. He ackn

owledged that nei

ther of the wi

tnesses s ai d they ha d s ee n t he sho o t ing an d n eit he ro f t he m ment io ne d M ike Ma ldo na do
. He als o st at ed t ha t he did not know whether the wi

tnesses actual

ly wai ted to speak to t he detectiv e. Detective Garci

a testif ie d that he was assi

gned to the case on May

22, 2004. At t hat tim

e, he di d n ot ha ve the na mesof an y su sp ec ts or w

i tne ss es . He

i nte rvi ew ed the vi cti m ’s mothe r on1-07-2406

5

June 1, 200 4, and lea rne d o f the t wo po t ent ial witnes ses fo r t he first t ime. He t hen sp ok e t o t he off ic ers who had origin

ally responded to t he cal

l, b ut t hey were only

abl e to give h

im phy sical des cr ipt ions o f the t wo wit nesse s and a de scr ipt ion o f the vehicle t hey wer e in. O n June 5, he
re ce i v ed i n f orm ati on th at th e f em al e wi tn es s h ad b een sto pp ed b y th e p oli ce

an d h e w as ab l e to obtain h er nam e and address . He and hi

s partner drove around the area where sh e liv ed several tim es but were unable

to locate her. On the e

ven in g of Jun e 11, 2004, they returned to t he area and h e saw a l igh t-co lored SUV wi

th Indiana l

ic ense pl ates. He sto pped the veh ic le and spoke with the dri

ver, Jill ia n Sm ith. He told h

er why they were lookin

g for her an

d asked her i

f s he was willi ng t o g o w ith t hem to t he po lice st at ion. She a gr eed t o g o w ith t hem and he dr ove her t o t he station. He

r SUV was b

rough t to t he station l ater by another of

f i cer. Ga r cia an d h is p ar t ne rint er vie we d S mit h a r o un d 1 0 p
. m. He t es t ified t ha t she init ially t o ld them that at the

tim e the cri me took pl ace , she had j ust pul l ed upnext to the pa

rk wh en she heard
a wom an scre am i ng. S he sai d tha t the other occupa

nt i n the v ehi cle got out to in ve stigate. Garcia said that he told Smi th she was not being trut hf ul b ecause she was parked directly across t he st r ee t fr o m wh er e t he cr ime o cc ur r ed an d s he mus t ha ve se en o rhe ar d s o met hing
. Ga r cia testifi ed that Smi

th got very

quie t and then told them

she was not bein g trut hf ul. He s ai d they spo ke w ith S mith for an ad dit ional 90 minute s, a nd at t he end of t he co nver sat ion, he had t he
n am e of an addi ti on al wi tn es s, A n ge l Rod ri gu ez , a n d a su sp ect, M i

ke Ma l don ado, k n own onl y to S mit h a s “ Lit t le L az y. ” S mit h t he n id en t ifie d d ef en da nt in a ph o t o ar r ay. Garcia testifi ed that around 6 or 7 the nex t morni ng, he as ked Smi th if she would stay at the station whi

le they attempted to locate Rodriguez. He wen t t o t he address

Smi th provided1-07-2406

6

around 7:30 a.m. and s

poke with Mercedes

Rodriguez, An

gel ’s m ot her. He asked i

f h er son was at home and Angel

came out and spo ke with hi m. Garcia testif

ied that he knew Angel

was a juv en ile a ft er he sp o ke t o Me r ce de s a nd Ang el in t he ir h o me. He info rmed Ang el t ha t he wo uld li ke to speak t o him

about a murder he m

ay have wi tnessed an

d asked hi m to go t o t he polic e st at io n. Ang el a gr ee d a nd Ga r cia ac co mpa nie d h im t o his b ed r o o m wh ile he go t dr es se d. He sa id that he the

n i nf orme d Mercede s tha

t her s on wa s n

ot in troubl e but may ha ve wi tnes sed a m urder. He i n v i ted Me rc edes to ac com pa n y th em to th e stati

on . Sh e d i d n ot go w i th th em , but c am e to t he st at io n be t we en 8: 30 an d 9 t ha t mo rning
. Ga r cia ex pla ine d t o he rt ha t t he int er vie w c o uld t ake a litt le time and she left t he st at ion. Garcia testifi ed that the in

itial in terview wi

th Ange l took place sh

ort ly after they

arriv ed at t he st at ion and Angel t old him that he and a gir l named Jill had dr iven to Pio t ro wsk i Par k t he ni gh t of the m urder. Hehe ard

a l ad y screa m i ng an d though t sh e w asge tti

ng robbe d, s o he

got out of th e v eh i cl e to s ee i f h e c oul d h el p h er . G arci a th en l ef t th e room

to s pe ak wi th Sm i th briefl y. He returned f

or a second in

terview wi

th Ange l, an

d he testif ie d that Angel

gave a f ew mor e de t ails, including t hat he t ried t o k eep t he vict im awake . G ar cia end ed t he inte rview and was getting ready

to le ave an

d le t t he day detectives take over, but was i nf ormed that Angel

had giv en som e m ore details

so he returned to t he i

nterview room. The third i nterview l asted for 30 mi nutes and A

ngel ide ntif ie d defen dant in a photo arr ay . Garcia s ai d that he di d not accuse An gel of c omm i ttin g the m urder a nd th at he did not thre aten

hi m or shout at hi

m . Gar cia t hen we nt t o d efenda nt ’s ho use wit h seve ra l ot her officer s. D efenda nt op ened t he door and was taken

in to custody. Garci a testif

ie d that defenda

nt’s brother, Joe Mal donado, was1-07-2406

7

also i n th e h ous e. G arc i a s tate d that Joe g ave the of f i cers perm

i ss i on to s ea

rch the f i rs t f l oor of the house an d they f oun d a 12- ga uge sh otgun bu t did n ot f i nd a 9 -m i l l i meter han dgu n, the we ap on us ed i n th e m urder. Ga

rci a te sti f i ed tha t he knew Joe Ma l donado an

d that Joe w asa f

el l ow member o f the Tw o- Six ga ng, so he wa nt ed t o q ues t ion him. Ga rc ia ask ed J oe t o a cco mpany them back to t he station an d he agreed. Garc i a testif

i ed that he

i nterv i ewed Joe at the stati

on an d asked h i m ab out the sh

otgun. Joe sta ted tha t he di d n ot ha ve an y kn owl edgeof i t. He the n ask ed Joe ab out the m

urder. Joe said that he heard som

eone had b een ki

ll ed but did n

ot know any

thin g about it. Garcia testif

ie d that i n the m ean tim e, def endan t had be en i den tif i ed i n a l i ne up by both S m i th an d Rodri guez . Afte r t he lineup, Gar cia co nt act ed t he St at e’s At t or ney’s o ffi ce a nd sho rt ly ther eaft er , Ass ista nt St at e’s At t or ney Ro ber t so n ar rived . G ar cia and Ro ber t so n spo ke w ith Jo e Ma ldo nado ar ou nd 10 :3 0 t ha t ev en ing
. Ga r cia sa id J o e d id n o t t ell t he m an yt hing diffe r en t fr o m wh at he o r igin ally to ld Ga rcia. Gar cia t est ifi

ed t hat Smith, Ro dr iguez and J oe Maldo nado wer e fed, given wa t er , a nd allo we d t o go t o t he ba t hr o o m eit he ro n t he ir o wn o rt he y wo uld kn o ck o n t he do o ro f t he ir inter view r oo m and so meone wo uld t ake t hem to t he bat hro om. Gar cia said he as ked Jo e if he would be wil li ng to stay longer and Joe sai d ye s. Garcia

and Robertson left the station. Wh en Garc i a return

ed the f oll owi ng d ay around 2 pm

, Joe wa s sti

l l there
. Ga r cia an d a no t he rde t ec t ive int er vie we d J o e a ga in fo r30 minu t es . T his t ime, Ga r cia sa id Joe to ld a compl etely dif feren t sto ry. Joe sai

d he h ad been drin kin g with f rien ds on the bl

ock where the m

urder occurred. Around 4 i n the m ornin g, he was wal

kin g northbound on that block,1-07-2406

8

on the west si de of the street next to t he park. He saw a m al e goin g up the stairs i

nto a residen

ce on th e oth er si de of th e stre et. He

th en sa w a v eh i cl e pul l upwh i ch h e rec ogn

ize d a s b el

ongi n g to Pl ay b oy , a f el l ow Two- Si

x er . H e a l so s aw h i s b roth er , M i ch ae l Ma l don ado, a pp roach an d tal k to the person i

n the vehi cl e. He heard the person i n the vehi cl e tell hi s brother to “get that punk.” He h eard g uns hots an d sa w hi s brother shooti

ng th e y oung m an he had se en goi ng u p the stai rs. He then saw

hi s brother run north away from the scene . Joe said that when he returned hom

e, t her e wa s a light on in his br ot her ’s r oo m but t he do or was lock ed. He a ske d his bro t her t he next day why he sh ot “that ki d,” but hi s brother did n ot respond. Garc i a testif

i ed that he

spoke wi th Rob ertson

agai n, a nd R oberts on return

ed to the station
. Ga rci a s ai d that he di d n

ot sh out a t Joe be f ore R obe rtson arr i ve d a nd tha t Joe di d n ot com pl ai n of bei ng col d or hungry

or say that he wan

ted to le ave. Robertson spoke wi th Joe again

and took a ha nd wr it t en st at eme nt fr o m him. Jo e w as as ke d t o r ema in a t t he st at io n u nt il t he fo llo win g d ay, wh en h e w oul d b e ta ken b ef oreth e g ra n d j ur y to gi v e th e state men t h e h ad j ust gi v en to Ro be rt so n. Jo e a gr ee d a nd t es t ifie d b ef o r e t he gr an d j ur y t he fo llo win g d ay. Garcia further testif

ie d that he attempted to fi nd Play boy a nd learned that his nam

e was Bo bby Cor do va. He a nd his pa rt ner at t empt ed t o lo cat e Co rd ova on J une 1 3 and informed t he 10th Dis trict that t hey

were lookin

g for hi m. He n ever recei ved an y c alls from the 10th Dis

trict and testif ie d that t o t he b est of his knowledge, nobody was currently lookin g for Cordova. Ji l l i an Sm i th te sti f i ed tha t sh e h as35 to 4 0 f

rien dsan d a cq uai nta nc eswh o are mem be rs of the Two-Si

x ga ng. S he sai d tha t in Feb ruary 2004, s he wasdi agn

osed wi th m ul tip l e sc l erosis. She l ost her vi sion and could not walk. She was treat ed wi

th steroids, and i

n May 2004, her1-07-2406

9

vi si on wasf i ne . Sh e te sti f i ed tha t at the ti me of the trial , sh e w asha vi ng prob l em s wi th h er v i si on agai n. Sh e stated that on th

e ev en i ng of May 21, 200 4, sh

e learn ed that an ex -boy f ri end of hers named P ilo had be en sho t . S he pick ed u p t hre e friend s, Ang el Ro dr iguez , N oe l and Qu iro , a nd t hey went t o M ou nt Sinai Ho spit al to visit Pilo . S he wa s dr iving her be ige Blaz er wit h Ind iana pl ate s. Sm i th testi f i ed th at b oth Qui ro a n d R odri gu ez weremem

b er s of th e Two- Si

x ga n g. S m i th could n ot recall wh

at time the

y went to t he h

ospital or how long they

stayed, b ut she estim

ated th ey wereth ere f

or a f ew h our s. She l

ef t th e h osp i tal wi th Qui ro a n d R odri gu ez an d d rove to Ci cero wh ere sh e d ropp ed Qui ro of f . Sm i th te sti f i ed tha t to he r kn owl edge , th ere

wa s n o al coh ol in her car, nobody

in the car was dri

nki ng al cohol at any

tim e durin g the even

in g, and there was
no co ca ine in he rca r . Ro dr igu ez as ke d t o be dr o pp ed o ff at t he ho us e o f o ne o f his f r ien ds in Chicag o. While Smith was dr iving back t o t he cit y, she no t iced t hat her rings w er e missing. S he started shout in

g at Rodriguez becaus e she thought he or one of the other y oung me n ha d taken t he m. Smi

th testifi ed that she drove down Ke el er on the bl ock where the vi

ctim li ved an d parked on th e s i deof the stre et n ex t to the pa rk s o tha t sh e c oul d l ook f or her r i ng s b ec au se

sh e w asnot goi n g to l et R odri gu ez go u n ti l sh e f oun d th em. Sh e s ai d th ey werepa rk ed on th e stre et f

or q ui te a whi le bef ore anythi ng ha ppened, but that the only

thin g she di d durin g that t im e was l ook for her ri ngs and sh out at Rodriguez . The

streetl i ghts were stil l on b ut the sky wasstarti

ng to get li

ght. She lo ok ed in her side mirr or and no t iced a young man walking ho me fro m somew her e o n t he op po site side o f the st re et . S he t hen loo ked in her r ear view mirro r a nd sa w so meone ru nning to ward the young m

an f rom beh in d. As the person wh

o was runni

ng got closer, she sa

w hi s f ace1-07-2406

10

t hro ugh t he dr iver’s side w indo w. She no t iced t hat he had a bald he ad w ith a lo ng po nytail and recognized hi

m as Li tt le Lazy, the nam

e by whi ch sh e knew def

endan t. She then saw that he h ad a gu n and s aid t hat as he go t clos er t o t he you ng man, he st ar t ed s hoo t ing. S mith t est ifi ed t hat t he young man was st ill

on t he side walk w hen Lit t le Lazy st ar t ed s hoo t ing and t hat dur ing t he sho o t ing she sa w h im go ing up t he st air s o f a h o us e. Whe n t he sho o t ing st o pp ed , she sa w L it t le La zy run of f towa rd th e p ark an d hea rd a wom an screa m i ng . Sm i th tol d R odri guez to g et ou

t of the c ar an d go se e if

the woma

n n eede d he l p. Sm i th wa s sti l l i n h er ca r w h en th e p oli ce

ar ri v ed on th e s cen e. She s ai

d th ey aske d h er to ge t o ut o f t he ca r

an d t o o k d o wn he rad dr es s a nd ph o ne nu mbe r . T he o ffice r s a sk ed he rt o wa it
un t il t he de t ec t ive s c ame so she an d R o dr igu ez wa it ed fo ro ve ran ho ur an d t he n t he o ffice r s s aid they could go and that someone would be contacting them. On June 11, 2004, Smi

th testifi ed that she was stopped by

Garcia whi le she was driv in g down the street in h

er car. Garcia told h

er tha t the y wa nte d to a sk

he r s ome q ue sti ons ab out the shooti

ng , so s he went to th

e p ol i cesta

ti on in the squad car. Garci a and an ot her off ic er cam e to t al k to her about 20 mi

nutes af ter t hey
ar rived at t he st at ion. Smith sa id t hat at first she t old t hem she d id no t see anything be cau se she did n ot want any

body c omi

ng af ter her. She said both off ic ers l eft the room and Garci a returned by hi ms el f ab out 45 mi

nutes later. In the second in terview, sh

e told Garcia

that she had s een de f en da nt s hoot th e v i cti m . Ga rci a showed he r a photo a

rra y an d s he i denti f i ed a p hoto of def endan t. She l ater iden tif i ed de f endan t in a l i ne up. Smi th test if ied that she was at t he police stat ion f or abo ut four or five h

our s. On crossexam in ation, she stated t hat she di

d not remem

ber if s he was a ctuall y a t t he polic e station f

or o ver1-07-2406

11

24 hours and acknow ledged that she wanted t o go home but was not free t o go home. She al so sai d sh e di d not rem em ber whethe

r the s econ

d i nterv i ew i n f act took pl ace

around 2 a.m., ap pr o ximat ely e igh t ho ur s a ft er she ar r ive d a t t he po lice st at io n. Smit h t es t ified t ha t he rdia gn o sis of m ulti ple sclerosis caus ed her to experie nce a certai

n am ount o f f orget ful ness . She sai

d that her f i nge rs we re i tchi ng a f ter sh e f i rst picked up Noel, Qui

ro and Rodri guez , so sh

e took her r

i ngs off
. She a ckno wledg ed t hat she fo und he r r ings t wo days a fte r t he sho ot ing, t uck ed inside her st eer ing wh ee l co ve r , wh er e s he ha d p lac ed t he m wh en she t o o k t he m o ff so t ha t no o ne wo uld ge t t he m. Rodriguez testif

ie d that he used to be a me mb er of the Two-Six gan g and that he h

ad been intr od uce d t o S mith by ano t her Tw o- Six member. Ro dr iguez said t hat Smith p icked him up t he
ev en ing be fo r e t he mur de ralo ng wit h se ve r al o t he rpe o ple an d d r o ve t he m t o t he ho sp it al t o visit
an oth er Tw o-S i x ga n g m em b er wh o h ad b een sh ot. H e s ai

d S m i th h ad al coh ol an d c oca i n e wi th her when she f i rst picked hi m up an d they were dri nki ng a nd s ni f f i ng c ocai ne al l ev en i ng. Someti me b ef ore m i dni ght, Sm i th, Rodri guez and Qui ro le f t the h ospi tal . Sm i th droppe d Qui

ro o ff in C ice r o , an d t he n st o pp ed at Ro dr igu ez ’ ho me a few blo ck s a wa y so he co uld pic k u p s o me CD s. R odri guez te sti f i ed tha t when he got b ac k i

n th e c ar, he drov e b ec au se Sm i th wastoo dr un k. W h i l e h e w as dri v i n g, S m i th wa s g i v i n g h i m coc ai n e to s n i f f on a key. Rodri gu ez

drov e to Piotrowski Park. He descri bed i t as a park where Two-Six gan g me mb ers han

g out to pla

y ba sk et ba ll, s mo ke an d d r ink
. He sa id h e d r o ve t o Ke ele ran d p ar ke d n ex t t o t he pa rk b ec au se it
wasa rel axi ng s pot. Afte r t hey par ked t he ca r, Ro dr iguez t est ifi ed t hat t hey wer e playing t he music lo ud a nd
we re sniffing co ca ine a nd d rink ing h ar d liq uo r. Ro dr igu ez sa id he sniffe d a line o f co ca ine o ff1-07-2406

12

Smit h’s br ea st s. Aft er so me t ime ha d g o ne by, Ro dr igu ez go t o ut o f t he ca rbe ca us e S mit h t o ld him t o lo o k fo rhe rr ing s a nd t ha t is w he n t he y hea r d s o meo ne sc r ea ming fo rhe lp. Smit h t o ld h im to go see where the voice was c omi ng f rom. Someone turned a porch l igh t o n sev eral h ouses aw ay , s o h e ran

ov er to th e h ous e a n d s aw a y oun g m an dow n on th e f l oor of th e p orc h

wi th bloo d ar ou nd him and a w oman c rying. H e sa id t he you ng man’s e yes wer e “shak y,” w hich he des cr ibed t o mea n bet wee n op en and clos ed, so he t old t he wo man to t ry and kee p him awak e and sta rted tappi ng the youn g m an ’s sh oeswi th h i s ow n f eet. He l ef t the house an d w assta nd i ng on t he sid ew alk wit h S mit h abo ut t wo ho us es aw ay w he n t he po lice ar r ive d. He t es t ified t ha t he t o ld the p oli ce h e di d not hear or s ee the sh

ootin g an d tha t he on l y he ard a w

oma n s crea m i ng. Ro dr igu ez sa id t he po lice as ke d b o t h him a nd Smit h fo rt he ir n ame s a nd ad dr es se s a nd t he n t o ld them they cou ld leave. He said Smi th dr ove awa y f

ro m the scene and t hey went to her friend’s house, where they

continue d to drin

k and sn if f cocai ne. He di d not ret urn to his h

ome un til la ter th at n i gh t. Around 7:30 a.m . on June 12, 2004, Rodriguez was at home sl

eepi ng when Ch

ic ago police detectives

cam e to his h ouse. He said the

detectives told h

im to come wi

th them a nd when he as ked why, t hey said, “Just wait t ill we g et t o ju venile.” He s aid he s aw his mo t her when he
came o ut t o g et dr esse d, but t hey wo uld no t let he r g et clos e t o him. H e wa s hand cuffed and t ak en o ut t o t he un mar ke d p o lice ca r . He no t ice d t ha t t he do o r o n t he firs t flo o rlo o ke d a s if it ha d b ee n br o ke n, pr es uma bly by t he de t ec t ive s. He sa id h e t ho ug ht t he y t o o k h im t o a ju ve nile cent er . T her e we re a lot of o ffi ces and t he de t ect ives t oo k him to a r oo m on t he se co nd floo r a nd handc uffed him to a met al bench in t he r oo m. Ro dr iguez said t hat t hey did no t re move t he1-07-2406

13

handc uffs unt il they moved him to ano t her ro om so metime lat er . H e sa id t hat t hey to ld him he
wasthere be caus e he ki

l l ed s ome one. Rodriguez sai

d that t he f

irst three tim

es he was i

nterviewed by

detectives h

e told them tha

t he had neithe r se en no r he ar d t he sho ot ing and t hat he had not see n defend ant t hat night . I n t he fou rt h inter view, he sa id t hat t he de t ect ive sho wed him a phot o a rr ay and t old him to pick o ut t he pers on w ho h ad done the shooti

ng . He se l ec ted a p hoto a nd the de tec ti ve tol d h i m tha t wa s n ot the one he wa nte d h i m to ch oose an d to s el ec t an othe r ph oto. A f ter s el ec ti ng two m ore photos and be ing t old by the d et ect ive tha t he had select ed t he wr ong pho t o, Ro dr iguez t est ifi ed t hat he f i n al l y se l ected de f en da n t’s ph oto. H e a l so a ck n owl ed ge d th at h e g av e a h an dw ri tten sta tem en t to the assistant Stat e’s A

tt orney i n wh ic h he said he saw de fen

dant runni ng f rom the scen

e after shots were fi

red. He testifi

ed that the reason he told that stor y to the detective is becaus e he was intimidat ed by t he po lice sho ut ing at him and t rying t o blame him for t he mur der . H e sa id t he assist ant St at e’s At t or ney ask ed him t o t ell him what he t old t he po lice and he t old t he st or y the det ect ive want ed him t o t ell becau se he was afra id t hat if he did no t , he wo uld be c har ged wit h t he murder. Rod riguez test if ied that when he was taken to the li neup, a det ective told hi

m to choo se t he sa me p er so n he ha d s ele ct ed in t he ph o t o ar r ay. Ro dr iguez co nfirmed t hat he had ask ed t he as sist ant St at e’s At t or ney to re loca t e him and his famil y becau se he was sca re d o f the Tw o- Six ga ng. He t est ifi ed t hat in or der t o lea ve t he Two-Six gan

g, a mem ber has to go t hrough what i s known as a vi olation, a b eat down from h ead to to e that lasts for t hree mi nutes. Ho wever, Rod riguez said he never got t he beat down because t he ga ng st ill t r ies t o do so met hing t o yo u e ve n if yo u s ur vive t he be at do wn . At t his p o int in his1-07-2406

14

t est imony, t he co ur t re minded t he jur y that any evidenc e r ega rd ing membership in a s t re et gang was being o ffered for t he limi t ed p ur po se o f show ing t he po ssible inte re st , mo t ive or bias o f the pers on testi f y i n g. R odri gu ez ’s

h an dw ri tten sta tem en t wa s read i

n to th e rec ord . In

th e state men t, Rodriguez sai

d defen dant was the onl

y pe rson he saw tha

t nigh t near where the sh

ot s were f ired and that there was no one else i n the i mm edi ate area. Joe Maldonado, defendan t’s brother, t estif

ie d that in the e arly

morni ng hours of M ay

22, 200 4, h e s tay ed up w i th h i s g i rlf rien d un ti l ab out 3 a .m . He

sa i d h i s b roth er wasi

n h i s b ed room ne xt do o rpla ying lo ud mus ic w it h fr ien ds
. Jo e s aid t ha t be ca us e o f t he mus ic, he did no t ac t ua lly fall asleep u nt il 3:30 or 4 a. m. He ack now ledge d t hat he did no t act ually see his br ot her , bu t he was sure hi

s brother would not leav

e the house whi

le hi s f rien ds were there. On Ju ne 12 , 2 004 , t he po lice came t o his ho use . H e r eco gnized Det ect ive Gar cia so he opened the door. He testif ie d that Garcia sl

am me d hi m up a gai nst the wal

l, then to ok him in side and threw hi

m on the c ouch and started searchi ng the h ouse. He eventual

ly fi gured out that t hey
were l ooki ng f or hi s b roth er, wh

o wa s u ps tai rs taki ng a shower. Th e of

f i cers br ough t a ri f l e or sho t gu n w r ap pe d in a w hit e t o we l an d a sk ed Jo e w ho t he gu n be lo ng ed t o . He t o ld t he m it did not belong t o him and he had ne ver see n it befo re . Jo e sa id he wa s hand cuffed , t ake n ou t side a nd t hro wn int o t he de t ect ives’ ca r. The det ect ives dr ove him to t he po lice st at ion and place d him in a small roo m with co ncr et e floo rs, no w indo ws, and a st eel benc h wit h a r ail behind it. The h an dcuf f s were rem

ov ed an d h e w as l ef t i n th e room un ti l Ga rc i a a n d a n oth er detecti v e c am e to tal k to hi m . Jo e sa id t hat t he de t ect ives we re sho ut ing and s cr eaming in his face, t elling him t hat he1-07-2406

15

knew som

ethin g. He said they

were grabbi

ng hi m h ard li ke they were about to hi

t him. He was kep t in the r oo m for a long t ime but he did no t kno w wha t t ime it was . H e sa id t hat he t ried t he door but i t was l ocked a nd h e b anged on

i t to use the bathroom

but they would not let hi

m . Detectiv es c am e b ack to the

room i n gr oups of two ma y be f our or fi ve tim es to tal k to hi m . It was not until

the third ti

me they cam e back that the detective s told hi m h is brother had comm

itted
a m urder. Assi stant Stat e’s A tt orney R obertson eventual

ly cam e i n to t al k to hi m a nd prepared a han dwritten statemen

t at 6 p. m. on Jun

e 13. Joe sign

ed each page

of the statemen

t and in itial ed all change s. O n June 14, Jo e t est ifi ed be for e t he gr and jur y. The handw rit t en st at ement and gr an d ju ry t es t imo ny w er e b o t h p ub lishe d in full t o t he jur y at t r ial. Ac co r din g t o his g r an d ju ry t es t imo ny an d t he ha nd wr it t en st at eme nt he sig ne d, Jo e t o ld Ro be rt so n t ha t he wa s o ut dr ink ing an d p ar t ying wit h his fr ien ds t he nig ht o f t he mur de r . A lit t le aft er 4 a. m., Jo e wa s wa lking ho me pas t Pio t ro wsk i Par k, on t he side of t he st re et next t o t he park. He saw a y

oung ma n wal kin g to ward one of the houses a nd then saw a car com

in g down the stre et. The

ca r s l owe d dow

n, an d he h ea rd th e v oi ceof a p ers on h

e k ne w n am ed Bob Cor dov a, also k n own as Pl ay b oy . H e c oul

d h ea r C ordov a s ay

i n g th i n gsl i ke , “ Go a h ead, d o i t, don’t be a punk.” In

the han dwritten statemen

t, he sai d the car drove off and then he saw that Co rd ova had be en t alking t o his br ot her , w ho w as st anding ne ar t he side walk jus t nor t h of t he ho us e t he yo un g ma n w as go ing int o . He t he n he ar d s o me s ho t s s o he du ck ed do wn , bu t sa w h is brothe r sh ootin g at the young m an . In h i s gra nd jury testi mony, Joe s aid tha

t af ter he he ard Co rd ova t alking, he t hen hea rd so me sho ut ing and s hoo t ing and t hou ght t he sho t s we re co ming f rom the ca r, s o he drop pe d dow n to th e groun d. In both s

tate men ts h e s ai d that w he n h e g ot1-07-2406

16

back up, he

saw a person wh

o looked li

ke his brother runni

ng away. He saw a bal

d head an d a l i ttl e p ony tai l . He sa i d i t wa s dark, but he w aspretty su re th e p ers on h

e s aw wa s h i s b roth er. Joe did no t see anyone else in t he ar ea. He r an t hro ugh t he pa rk t o g et awa y from t he sc ene a fte r t he sh ooti n g a n d s aw som e of h i s f rien dson an oth er b l ock so h e stopp ed an d h ad som e b eerswi th them. W hen he got home, the door t o his brother’s room was locked and the l igh ts were off. He said that he tried to ask hi s brot her about t he shoot in g the next day, but did not get any response so he stopped askin

g. A t tri al , Joe deni ed tel l i ng Rob erts on th

at he w asi

n th e a rea the ni gh t of the m urder or t hat he sa w his bro t her sho ot anyone at t hat loca t ion. He a ckno wledg ed t hat he signe d t he han dwritten statemen

t prepared by R

obertson. Ho wever, he s ai d that t he statemen t represented the words of Robertson and the detectives and the s to ry they cam e up wi th. He sai d he was hu ng ry, col d a nd ti red . He ha d b een k ep t i n a sm al l room wi th n othi ng i n i t bu t a m etal be nc h f or over 24 hours and duri

ng that tim

e, he sai d, he was n

ot allowed to use the restro om. He was
we ari ng a s l eeve l es s te e shi

rt an d he w asf

reezi ng . He sa i d they made i t se em l i kei t wa s ov er f or hi s brot her. They showed hi m a pi ctur e of the victi

m’s sister and another per son and said those people were def

in ite wi tnesses. Joe testif

ie d that Robertso n told hi m h is brother was “screwe d”
an d w asgoi ng to ge t 50 y

ea rs i f he di d n ot si gn the sta tem en t. He sa i d that he tol

d R obe rtson that t he statemen

t was all li es and R obertson got angry

and told hi

m just to put his

“f ricki ng” initials and s ignat ur e do wn. Jo e t est ifi ed t hat he wa s t ired and hu ngr y and co uld no t t hink st r aig ht , so he sig ne d w he r e h e w as t o ld t o sig n a nd pu t his in it ials wh er e h e w as t o ld t o pu t t he m. When ask ed a bou t his te st imony befor e t he gr and jur y, Jo e sa id he did no t re call being1-07-2406

17

as ke d t ho se qu es t io ns. He t es t ified t hat he w as t ak en t o 26 t h an d C alifo rn ia in ha ndc uffs t o t es t ify before t he grand jury. They put him in a sm all office where he sp oke with Assistant St ate ’s At t o rne y Ph yllis P o r ce lli. J o e s aid t ha t he as ke d P o r ce lli if he c o uld t rus t he ran d if h e c o uld t alk to he r ab out the s tate men

t i f i t wa s n ot true . He

sa i d s he tol d h i m tha t i f the sta tem en t wa s n ot t ru e, she w ou ld have t o c all the o ffi cer s and he wo uld have t o t ell them abo ut it. Afte r t hat , he said he di d not t ell h

er any thin g el se beca

use he was terrif

ie d of the poli

ce and was

afrai d they
wo uld t ake him back t o t he st at ion and beat him. He sa id Po rc elli to ld him to re ad t he st at ement agai n an d le ft hi m a lone in the off ic e. He estim

ated that he was alone for about an hour and kept readi ng th e statem en t over an d over. Jo e s aid t ha t he t o ld R o be rt so n t ha t he us ed t o be a me mbe ro f t he T wo - Six ga ng bu t his fact ion wa s dr op ped fro m the r egu lar T wo -S ix or ganiza t ion bec aus e t hey just liked t o p ar t y. The assist ant St at e’s At t or ney ask ed J oe if he to ld Ro ber t so n t hat his bro t her was a member o f the same g ang. Defens e co unse l object ed bu t Jo e had alrea dy answ er ed in t he affirmat ive. T he obje ction was s

ustain ed. Joe test if

ie d that Cordo va h

ad l eft the Two-Six gan

g and was a

me mb er of the MLD gan

g at the time

of the sh oot in g and that MLD an

d Two-Six are “ at war” with each other. A mem ber of Two-Six woul d not take an order f rom a mem ber of M LD. Jo e w as as ke d a ga in lat er if his b r o t he rwa s a T wo - Six membe rin 2 00 4. He sa id h e d id not kno w if he was at t hat t ime. He was t hen as ked , “Y ou do n’t kno w if your bro t her was in a gang ?” He answ er ed, “I k now he wa s befo re .” The t rial co ur t t hen inst ru ct ed t he jur y that any test im ony about mem

bershi p in a street gang is onl

y to be considered for the very l im ited purpo se of sh owing possi

ble m ot iv e, bias or in

terest as t o how a witness ma y b e testif yi ng.1-07-2406

18

Po rc elli ackno wledg ed t hat when J oe was bro ught in befor e t he gr and jur y he was w ear ing a t ank t op . S he t est ifi

ed t hat Jo e neve r t old her t hat t he hand wr itt en st at ement co nt ained lies and tha t sh e n ever s ai d s he would c al

l the de tec ti ve s b ac k. S he

also te sti f i ed tha t sh e di d n ot l ea ve Joe alo ne in h er o ffic e a t an y t ime b ef o r e h is g r an d j ur y t es t imo ny. Durin g cl osin g argumen

ts, t he State said: “W e don’t know the why . You didn’ t hear durin g the course of this

trial what the motiv e i s f or t hi s kill in g, for this e

xecuti on, and y

ou are not go in

g to recei ve an instr uct ion fro m the J udg e t hat says we have t o p ro ve wha t t he mot ive is. Did t he mot ive involve t he T wo -S ix? Was it p er so nal? Was Rica rd o H er nande z eve n t he i n ten de d ta rg et? Di d R i ca rd o He rn an de z ev en kn ow w h at th i s was ab out? * * * I n t he wo r ld o f t he T wo - Six er s, lad ies an d g en t leme n, Mik e M ald o na do is pr oba bly a hero .* **D oe s [t he syst em] se rve t he pu blic goo d o r d oe s it s er ve t he agenda of the Two-Sixers?

Despi te witness es testif

yi ng f or t he Two-Six

pla y book, y ou now k now the truth. Mi

ke M aldonado ex ecuted

Ricardo H ernandez.” Def endan t retai ne d pri va te coun sel to represe

nt h i m at the p ostconv

i cti on proce edi

ngs . He f i l ed a m otion f or a ne w tri al , argui

ng, inter al

ia , t ha t t r ial c o un se l wa s ine ffec t ive in repres en ti ng de f en da nt b y f ai l i ng to move to di sm i ss or ev en obj ec t to the

State ’s men ti on of Joe Maldo nado belong ing t o a gang , o r a ny evidence of g ang invo lvement. In t he hea ring o n t he
m oti on, de f ense cou ns el sa i d he w an ted to su ppl em en t the moti on to i

nc l ude one more p oi nt, or t o cla r ify t he po int alr ea dy ma de ab o ut ga ng ev ide nc e, na mely, t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in1-07-2406

19

gra nti ng the State ’s moti on to a

dm i t ga ng ev i denc e. D ef

ense cou ns el arg ue d that the evi

denc e of gang i nvol vem ent had n ot hi ng to do with the c

rim e and the State to ok advantage of the ev ide nce of gang mem

bershi p to suggest t hat it could have been a motive and ch

aract erized the case as a “gan g case.” The m

ot ion f or a new trial

was deni ed. The trial

court said: “I believe t he evide nce, t he limi t ed e vidence t hat came in re gar ding g ang in volv em ent here, was appropriate, i t was admi

tt ed for the proper purpo se and I do n ot be l i eve that i

t wa s s o pre

j udi ci al to the de f en da nt to c ha ng e the ou

tcom e of the ca se i n a ny wa y . It w asrel

evan t an d i t wa s prob ati

ve , an d n ot j us t – I do not bel ie ve i n an y way that t he def

endan t was convicted only

because there was
evi den ce that he wasa m em ber of a gan g.” This appeal

foll ows.
AN AL YSIS Defe ndan t fi rst contends that t he trial

court abused i

ts discretion by

adm ittin g evi dence tha t sugge ste d that the of

f ense wa s g an g re l ate d w

he n th e Sta te c onc eded

tha t the of f ense wa s n ot ga ng rel ate d. Th e tri al cou rt rul ed tha t the ev i denc e w asad

m i ss i bl e on l y f or pu rpos esof im peachm ent if two o f the wi

tnesses s hould reca

nt pretrial statements i

n wh ic h they im pli cated defen dant. However, the trial c ourt then perm itted the Stat e to eli ci

t extensi ve ev ide nce su gg es t ing t ha t t he o ffen se wa s, in fa ct , ga ng r ela t ed , an d t o po rt r ay t he o ffen se as ga ng r ela t ed in closi ng arguments. The S tate re sp on dsth at th

e ev i den ce

of ga n g m em b er sh i p w as prope rl y i n trod uc ed to1-07-2406

20

ex plai n w hy certai n wi tnes ses reca nted thei r prior han

dwri tten statemen

ts an d gran d j ury t est imony. T he St at e ar gue s t hat t he pr os ecu t or admit t ed d ur ing clos ing ar gument s t hat t he motiv e was unkn

own, and that when

gang m em bersh ip was di scussed i

n cl osin g argumen

ts, it was only to expl ai n wh y w itnes ses ch

anged thei

r stor ie s. Moreover, t he State contends that t hi s i ssue is wai ved b ecause def

ense couns el

did n ot obje ct during tri al

and di d not incl ude i t in h is postt rial
m oti on. Defend ant re plies t hat an issue may be pre ser ved fo r r eview by ra ising it in a mot ion in limine an d al so r aisi n g i t i n a p ost trial moti on . B ec au se

de f ense cou n se l f i l ed a rep l y ob j ecti n g to t he St at e’s mo t ion in limine to adm it gang e vi dence, an d because this is sue was, i

n f act, incl uded in defen dant’s posttrial

motion, thi s i ssue i s not waiv ed. However, if

this court should concl

ude t hat t his err or was not sufficient ly brou ght t o t he t rial co ur t ’s at t ent ion, defend ant ask s t hat it be
re viewed as p lain err or beca use t he evide nce w as c lose ly balanced a nd t he er ro r d enied d efenda nt t he r igh t t o a fa ir t r ial. Our re view o f the re co rd indicat es t hat defend ant fil ed a re ply to t he St at e’s mo t ion in limine t o a dmit g ang e vidence , a rg uing t hat t he evide nce o f any gang a ffi liatio n on t he pa rt of t he defend ant wo uld make it impo ssible for defend ant t o r ece ive a fair a nd impar t ial tr ial. De fendant f urthe r noted th at there wasno ev

i den ce that the m

urder was g ang rel

ated or ga ng m otiv ated. Defe nse couns el

ma de onl y one obje ction duri

ng trial to a statement m

ade by one of the wi

tnesses re ga rdi n g def en da n t’s ga n g a f f i l i ati on an d di d n ot ob j ect to an y of th e n um erous re f eren ce s to gang aff il iation or activi

ty in the St ate’s closin

g arguments. De f en da nt’ s m oti on f or a n ew trial f i l ed by su bs ti tute d ef ense cou ns el i nc l ude d a cl ai m of1-07-2406

21

ineffect ive assist ance of t rial co unse l for failur e t o o bject t o a ny evidence of g ang invo lvement. At the heari ng on the m

ot ion, def endan t clarifi ed the poin

t t o inc lude

the adm is sion of gang ev

ide nce gene ra lly , a rg uing t hat t he evide nce o f gang involvement had no t hing t o d o w ith t he cr ime and t hat t he St at e t oo k ad vant age of t he evide nce o f gang membership t o s ugg est t hat it co uld have be en a m otive an d to cha racteri ze the ca se a s a “gan

g cas e.” Our supreme

court has h

el d that a defen

dant preserves a

n i ssue f or appeal if (1) there has been a n objec t ion at t rial o r t he issue has be en r aised in a mot ion in limine , an d ( 2) t he iss ue is al so raised

i n the posttrial

motion
. People v. Hudson , 157 Ill . 2d 401, 434-35, 626 N. E.2d 161, 175 (19 93) ; People

v. Boclair, 129 Ill . 2d 458, 476, 544 N.E .2d 715, 723 (1989). Here, defend ant pr ese rve d t his issue w hen he r aised it in bo t h his rep ly to t he St at e’s mo t ion in limine and i n hi s postt rial motion. See People v. Mason , 274 Ill . App. 3d 715, 721-22, 653 N.E .2d 13 71 , 13 75 ( 19 95 ) ( r ec o gn izing t ha t so me a pp ella t e c as es r eq uir e a pa rt y t o co nt emp o r an eo us ly objec t but co ncluding t hat if the issu e is ra ised in a mo t ion in limine , it is not waived if defenda nt f ai l s to m ake a con tem pora ne ousobj ec ti on) . Se e al so People v. Barajas , 322 Ill . App. 3d 541, 553, 74 9 N.E.2d

1047, 1 056 (2 001) (h

old i ng th at the issue was

adeq uatel y pres erved wh

ere de fend ant o bjec t ed t o t es t imon y while t he c o ur t wa s c o nsid er ing w it nes s’s qu alifica t io n t o t es t ify
as a gang expe rt and a lso filed a p os t t rial mot ion st at ing t hat t he co ur t er re d in allowing t he wi tnes s to testi f

y as a n expe rt). Altho ugh w e must follow t he su pr eme co ur t hold ing t hat ra ising an issue in a mot ion in limine i s s uf f i ci en t to pres er

v e a n i ss ue as l ong a s i t i s a l so r aise d i n th e p ost trial moti on , w e n

ote that att orneys

should stil

l b e vi gil ant in obje cting duri

ng trial . In the i

nstant case, i

t is n ot cl ear1-07-2406

22

what ta cti cal stra tegy de f ense cou ns el wa s purs ui ng by onl y obj ec ti ng onc e to the i

ntr oduc ti on of ga ng mem be rs hi p e vi denc e w he n s uc h e vi denc e w asrep ea

tedl y i ntr oduc ed by the State f or purpo ses that went well

out side the l

im ited purpo se of im

peachin g two of its wi

tnesses. We also note that t he trial

court has the abil

ity, and i ndeed the respons ibil

ity, to enf orce its orders when att or neys v

iolate t hose o rder s. Her e, altho ugh t he tr ial cou rt stat ed in i

ts d enial of defendant’s motion f or a new trial

that t he ev

ide nce of ga ng i nvol vem ent was onl

y a dmi tt ed for the lim

ited pr op er pur po se, ou r r eview o f the re co rd disclo ses t hat was not t he ca se. When t he ga ng evidenc e wa s intr od uce d fo r t he limi t ed p ur po se o f im

pea ching t wo of t he St at e’s w itnes ses, t he t rial co ur t follow ed it up by r epe at ing t he limi t ing instr uct ion t o t he jur y. Ho weve r, on t he
nu merou s oth

er oc ca si ons i n w hi ch ga ng ev i denc e w asi

ntr oduc ed thr ough othe r wi tne ss es , or impr o pe r ly by t he wit ne ss es be ing impe ac he d, bo t h d efe nse co un se l an d t he co ur t we r e p r imar ily silent. Simil

ar ly, no o bject ions w er e made dur ing clos ing ar gument s whe n t he St at e sa id it ha d no mot ive, bu t t hen impro per ly used t he ga ng evide nce t o s ugg est t hat t he cr ime was in fact gang mo t iva t ed
. Ho we ve r , be ca us e d efe nd an t did o bje ct t o t he int r o du ct io n o f t his e vid en ce bo t h in h is
re ply to t he St at e’s mo t ion in limine and i n hi s postt rial motion, we concl

ude that this issue was suf fi ci ently preserved. E ve n if d efe nd an t ha d n o t su fficie nt ly pr es er ve d t his is su e, t his c o ur t ca n r ev iew it as pla in
error. Under the pl

ai n error doct rin

e, this c ourt ma

y rev ie w an error that was not pr eserved when “ (1) a c l ea

r or ob vi ouserr or occ urred an d the evi denc e is s o cl

ose l y ba l an ce d that the error al one threa ten ed to ti p the s cal esof

j us ti ceag ai

ns t the de f en da nt, reg ard l es s of the serious ne ss

of t he er ro r, or (2 ) a clear or obvio us e rr or oc cur re d and t hat er ro r is so ser iou s t hat it affec t ed t he1-07-2406

23

f ai rnes s of the de f en da nt’ s tri al an d c ha l l en ge d the i nte gri ty of the j udi ci al proc es s, r

eg ard l es s of the closeness of

the evi dence.” People v. Piatkow ski , 225 Ill . 2d 551, 565, 870 N.E .2d 403, 410- 11 ( 20 07 )
. Ou rr ev iew o f t he r ec o r d s ho ws t ha t t he ev ide nc e a dd uc ed at t r ial w as so clo se ly ba lan ce d in t his c as e t ha t t he er r o ralo ne co uld ha ve affe ct ed t he o ut co me a nd t hu s t he wa ive rrule do es no t ap pl y. T he St at e p r es en t ed no ph ysic al e vid en ce link ing de fen da nt t o t he mur de r , no rdid it present any

evi dence of a rela tionsh ip or connection between

defen dant and the v

ictim . No inculpat or y sta t ement s by defend ant wer e ad mitt ed. The St at e’s e nt ire ca se is bas ed o n t he t es t imo ny o f t hr ee eye wit ne ss es , t wo o f wh o m cla imed at t r ial t ha t t he st at eme nt s t he y sig ne d in t he pr ese nce o f the assist ant St at e’s At t or ney wer e signe d und er dur ess a fte r t hey wer e ke pt at t he po lice st at ion fo r se ver al days. Mo re ove r, t he t wo eyewit nesse s who wer e t og et her give conf l i cti ng s torie s ab out wha

t they were doi ng i n the hours b ef

ore the m urder a nd th e thi rd eye wit ne ss giv es a c o nflic t ing ac co un t o f wh at happ en ed jus t be fo r e t he sho o t ing
. Ro dr igu ez sa id he and Sm i th had b een

dri nki ng h ard l i quor an d sn i f f i ng c ocai ne al l ni ght, wh i l e Sm i th sa i d there was no al cohol or cocain

e i n the car an

d they were only

parked in that location b ecause sh

e was lookin g for her ri

ngs. Ac cording to Joe Maldonado, he was wal kin g down the street and saw a car stop next to defen

dant im me dia tely bef ore t he sh ot s were f ired, b ut neithe r of the other ey ewi tnesses s aw Joe Maldonado or the car, and both Sm ith an d Rodriguez testif

ie d that nobody el se was i n the are a at the

tim e of the shooti

ng. The State argues that t he ev ide nce i n thi s case was

not closel

y bal anced an

d contends that the attempts by

both witnes ses to change thei r stor ie s were “s o lam

e and obv ious that they1-07-2406

24

actual l y stren gthene d the

People’s cas e.” How ev er, the

record d oes n ot support this as serti

on. Ro dr igu ez sa id h e s ele ct ed t he wr o ng pe r so n fr o m t he ph o t o lineu p t hr ee t imes be fo r e h e fin ally
se lec t ed de fen da nt an d t ha t he o nly sig ne d t he st at eme nt be ca us e h e w as afr aid t he St at e w o uld char ge him wit h t he mur der if he did no t sign. The jury may not have fo und t his explana t ion t o be so “lam e and obv ious” wh en the ev ide nce adduced a

t t rial dis cl osed that Rodr iguez was presen t at t he sc ene a nd t he vict im’s mot her initially t hou ght he may have be en t he o ne who sho t her so n. The most pr oblemat ic witne ss fo r t he St at e is de fendant ’s br ot her , w ho c laims the detectives m

ade up the story of wh

at happened an

d he si gned the statemen

t because he was det ained a t t he st at ion fo r d ays in into lerable c ond itio ns and he wa s t old t her e we re wit nesse s who
wou l d te sti f y th at h i s b roth er di d i t. H e s ai d th e dete cti v es told h i m th at h i s b roth er wa s g oi n g to go awa y for 5 0 year s. T he r eco rd sup po rt s Jo e Ma ldo nado ’s as ser t ion t hat he wa s de t ained by the police for sev

eral da ys . If, as the State contends, the stat em ent signed b

y J oe Maldonado was his o wn ac co un t o f wh at happ en ed t he mo rning o f t he mur de r , t he St at e’ s c as e is ac t ua lly weakened b ecause a cruci al detail in Joe’s account i s m

is si ng f rom the account of the other two eyewit nesse s. S mith did no t mentio n see ing Jo e Ma ldo nado or t he ca r a llegedly dr iven by Co r do va , an d b o t h sh e a nd Ro dr igu ez cla im t ha t no bo dy b ut de fen da nt wa s in t he ar ea at t he t ime of t he mur der . S mith t est ifi ed t hat she first saw t he vict im walking ho me in her side mirro r a nd t hen sa w de fendant ru nning up fro m behind in her r ear view mirro r o n t he o ppo site side o f the st re et , bu t she a ppa re nt ly did not see Jo e Ma ldo nado walking t ow ar d her on t he sa me side o f the street. Smi

th saw def

endan t runni ng away through the park im

me dia tely after the sh

oot in g, but she di d not se e Joe Maldonado, who sai d i n h i s statemen

t that he al so ran through the p ark1-07-2406

25

im me dia tely after the sh

oot in g. Most critical

ly , Smi th testifi ed that she saw def

endan t runni ng up behind t he vict im and t hen sho ot ing him, while Jo e Ma ldo nado ’s ac co unt had a car st op ping beside defend ant near t he vict im’s hou se a nd t he dr iver sa ying somet hing t o d efenda nt i m medi atel y be f ore the s hooti ng. The State explai

ned at closin

g that Smi

th and Rodriguez could n ot be ex pected to pay at t ent ion t o e ver y car t hat dr ove pas t t hem on t he st re et , a nd t hat Co rd ova was alrea dy go ne by th e ti me S m i th l ooke d i n h er re ar v i ew m i rror . N ot onl

y doe s th i s ex pl an ati on ask th e j ur y to assu me witho ut any sup po rt ing evidenc e t hat t her e wa s a fair a mou nt of t ra ffi c o n a de ad- end
re sident ial str eet ar ou nd 4 a .m. , it also co nt ra dict s Jo e Ma ldo nado ’s st at ement re gar ding t he t iming a ndlo ca t io n o f o ne pa rt icu lar ca rbe ing pr es en t immed iat ely be fo r e t he sho o t ing
. I n his stat ement, Jo e Maldonado said that the car driven by Cor dova st opp ed just no rt h of the victim’s ho us e, he he ar d C o r do va sa y so met hing t o his b r o t he ran d t he sho o t ing happ en ed immed iat ely after this i ncident. I f thi s stat emen

t is correc t, then Smi

th wou ld h

ave seen Cordova’s car because she w as p ar ked just nor t h of t he vict im’s hou se a nd she t est ifi ed t hat she sa w t he vict im walking down the street from beh

in d her veh ic le to ward hi s house an

d then saw def

endan t runni ng up fr o m be hind an d s ho o t ing
. Ye t Smit h t es t ified t ha t t he r e w as no bo dy e lse in t he ar ea at t he t ime
o f t he sho o t ing
. T he r ec o r d c lea r ly su pp o rt s d efe nd an t ’s ar gu men t t ha t t he ev ide nc e w as clo se ly balance d in t his case . Mo re ove r, a mistr ial had t o be dec lared in the firs t t rial beca use of a hung j ury. There f

ore, be ca us e th i s iss uewa s s uf f i ci en tl y pre serv ed

an d b ec au se i t i nv ol ve s p l ai n e rror that could have aff

ected the out come i

n a case in whi ch the ev ide nce was cl osely bal anced, we wi l l con si der i t.1-07-2406

26

Defend ant co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d whe n it allo wed t he St at e t o p re sent ext ensive evid ence t hat sug ges t ed t he o ffense wa s ga ng r elat ed a nd t o p or t ra y the o ffense as gang related i n cl osin g argumen

ts. Defenda

nt argues that where the State’s theory that the offe nse was gang rel ated is n ot suf fi ci ently supported by the ev

ide nce, the onl

y purpose b ehi

nd suggesting that the off ense was gang rel

ated is to unf

ai rly prejudi ce the def endan t. See People

v. Smith , 14 1 I ll. 2d 4 0, 62, 565 N. E. 2d 9 00, 909 (1 990 ). Bec aus e t he effect of t his pre judicial evidenc e and
ar gu men t de pr ive d d efe nd an t o f a fa ir t r ial, de fen da nt is a sk ing t his c o ur t t o r ev er se his
co nvictio n. T he St at e r es po nd s t ha t ev ide nc e o f ga ng membe r ship wa s p r o pe r ly int r o du ce d t o ex pla in why cer t ain witne sses re cant ed t heir p rio r ha ndwr itt en st at ement s and gr and jur y tes t imony. T he St at e c it es a n umb er o f ca se s in s up po rt o f it s a r gu men t t ha t t he ga ng ev ide nc e w as r ele va nt in t his case . T he St at e fur t her co nt ends t hat it neve r a rg ued t hat t his offense was gang re late d and sp ec i f i ca l l y sta ted i n cl osi n g th at i t di d n ot h av e a moti v e f or th e cri me a n d w as n ot re qui re d to prov e on e. The S tate

argu es th at w h en ga n g m em b er sh i p w as disc us se d d uri n g c l osi n g a rgum en ts it was to explain

why the witnesses chan

ged their sto ries. The St at e’s a rg ument s ar e lack ing in merit. The St at e did no t only bring u p ga ng membe r ship wh ile q ue st io ning t he t wo wit ne ss es wh o ch an ge d t he ir s t o r ies
. Smit h a nd Ga r cia
wer e also ask ed q ues t ions a bou t t he T wo -S ix gang, and G ar cia t est ifi ed t hat t he r eas on he t hou ght Jo e Ma ldo nado knew so mething is becau se he was a fellow T wo -S ix member, implying t hat it w as a gang re late d mur der . Mo re ove r, t he St at e elicite d ga ng r elat ed e vidence fro m the t wo wit ne ss es it wa s imp ea ch ing t ha t we nt o ut sid e t he limit ed sc o pe o f sh o win g g an g me mbe r ship1-07-2406

27

to expl ai n wh y the y reca nted. The statemen

t given by Rodriguez to the Stat e’s A tt orney was pu blish ed t o t he jur y in it s e nt ire t y in wh ich Ro dr igu ez sa id t ha t t he vic t im lived in T wo - Six territor y a nd there were “ a bun

ch of Two-Six

ers standi ng around, busti

ng out” just a bl

ock away from the vi

ctim’ s house short ly

bef ore t he m urder. Joe Maldonado’s st atement was also pub l i shed to the j ury

i n i ts en tire ty, i nc l udi ng th e porti on i

n w hi ch he sai d he saw Cordova , a fellow g ang member , st op next t o d efenda nt right befo re t he sho ot ing and t ell defenda nt not t o be a “punk.” The stat emen

t also co ntained specul

ation by Joe t hat defendant did thi s because Cordova told h i m to do it. While i t is tr ue t hat t he St at e sa id in closing a rg ument t hat it d id no t have a mot ive for t he killi ng, it fo llowed t his st at ement by asking a ser ies o f que st ions s ugg est ing po ssible mot ives, a nd the fi rst qu estion asked was, “Did the motive i nvolv e the Two -Six? ” The Stat e did correct ly use t he ga ng ev ide nc e in clo sing ar gu men t s t o ex pla in w hy t he wit ne ss es ch an ge d t he ir s t o r ies , bu t did not st op t her e. The St at e as ked t he jur y to re member wha t Jo e Ma ldo nado said a bou t Co rd ova and that he h

eard Cordova say, “Get that punk,” and then the sh oot in g started. The State said,

“ Ga n g b an gersl i ke Mi ke Ma l don ado com m i t h orri b l e cri mes l i ke th i s on e. ” Th e S tate

wen t on to t ell the jur y that in the w or ld o f the Tw o- Sixer s de fendant is pro bably a hero and s aid t hat t he wit nesse s t est ifi

ed fo r t he T wo -S ix play boo k. Finally , t he St at e as ked if the syst em ser ves t he publ ic good o r the agenda of the Two-Sixers an

d to ld the jury that i

t now knew the trut h, that de f en da n t “ execute d”

th e v i cti m . Th e S tate ex pl ai n ed th at i t wa s u si n g th e w ord “ executi on ” to des cr ibe the sho ot ing beca use of t he met hod t hat was use d, namely, five sho t s t o t he bac k. At oral argument, t he Stat e clai med that the wo rd “execution” does not necessaril y m ean i t was a1-07-2406

28

gang m ot iv ated kil li ng an d that drive-b

y s hoot in gs are not alway

s gang rel ated. The cas es c i ted by the State i n s upport of i ts argu men ts are i na pposi te. See, e.g. , People v. Rivera , 14 5 Ill. App. 3d 6 09, 495 N.E .2d 108 8 (1 986 ); People v. Tolliver , 347 Ill . App. 3d 203 , 80 7 N. E. 2d 5 24 ( 200 4); People v. Dixon , 378 Il l . Ap p. 3d 53 5, 882 N .E.2d 668 (2007 ); People v. Thigpen , 3 06 I ll. App. 3d 2 9, 713 N. E. 2d 6 33 ( 199 9) . T hese cas es a ll suppo rt t he Stat e’s argum

ent that evi dence of

gang m em bersh ip i s rel evan t and adm is si ble for the lim

ited purpose of expl

ai ni ng wh y w itnes ses ch

anged thei

r stor ie s at trial . However, none of these cases address the i ssue of gan

g evi dence b ei ng i mproperl y us ed to suggest a motive wh ere the State has conceded i

t has no evi

dence of motiv e, or t o suggest t hat defe

ndan t commi tt ed the m

urder be caus e he i s a g ang m

em ber. Evidence of

gang rel ated activi

ty i s onl y a dmi ssi ble where there is suf

fi ci ent proo f that
such acti vi ty i s rel ated to the c

ri me ch arged
. Smith , 1 41 I ll. 2d a t 58, 565 N. E. 2d a t 907 . I n t he inst an t ca se , t he St at e a ck no wle dg ed t ha t it ha d n o pr o o f t he cr ime w as ga ng r ela t ed bu t yet it st ill publ is hed Joe Mal

donado’s uncorroborat ed statements ab out Cordova, stat em ents he den

ie d
ma kin g at tr ia l, an d then used those statemen ts in cl osin g argumen

ts to im properly suggest that t he sho ot ing was gang re late d and or der ed by Co rd ova . I n Rivera , t he co ur t he ld it wa s r ev er sible
err or f or th e Sta te, i n i ts i m pe achm en t of a w i tne ss , to ar

gue asf ac t som eth i ng tha t i t coul d n ot sub stan tia te. Rivera , 14 5 I ll. A pp . 3d at 62 1- 22 , 49 5 N . E . 2d at 10 96
- 97
. While t he St at e is permi tt ed wi de l atitude in

cl osin g argumen

t, it is i mproper for the prosecutor to argue as su m pti on s or f acts n ot b as ed up on ev i den ce i n th e c as e or

to pres en t to the j ur

y wh at a moun ts to hi s own

testi mony . Smith , 141 Ill . 2d at 60, 565 N. E.2d at 908. “Furtherm ore, it is i mproper1-07-2406

29

fo rt he pr o se cu t o rt o do o rsa y anyt hing in a r gu men t t he o nly eff ec t o f wh ich will be t o infla me t he pa ssio n or ar ou se t he pr ejudice of t he jur y against t he de fendant , w itho ut t hro wing any light on the question f

or decisi on.” Smith , 1 41 I ll. 2d a t 60, 565 N. E. 2d a t 907 . Finally, a d efenda nt can not autom

ati cal l y be ass um ed to be gui l ty b ase d on h

i s m em bersh i p i n a n un des i rab l e group. People v. Terry , 312 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 98 4, 992, 7 28 N.E.2 d 669, 6 76 (20 00). The St at e so ught per mission fro m the t rial co ur t t o int ro duc e evide nce o f gang membe r ship fo rt he limit ed pu r po se o f impe ac hing t wo o f it s w it ne ss es , an d t he n imp r o pe r ly intr od uce d ad dit ional ga ng- re late d evide nce t hat had no t hing t o d o w ith t hat lim ited pur po se a nd t he t rial co ur t did no t st ep in t o e nfor ce it s o rd er . At t he hea ring o n t he mot ion in limine to in tro duce evi

dence of gang m em bersh ip, the court said: “I don’t thi

nk qui te frankl y tha t any one i s goin

g to be taken b

y s urprise, that someh ow some type of

gang acti vi ty m igh t be afoot.*** I thin k there would al

ready be a strong suspi ci on on the part o f the jury that the re wasga ng ac ti vi ty af oot, an d I th i nk tha t by try i ng to l i m i t the pur pos e f or which it is a dmitt ed by br inging t hat t o t he at t ent ion o f the jury whe n t he ga ng re fere nces co me ou t , t hat t his is being admit t ed fo r t he limi t ed p ur po se o f show ing inter est , mo t ive, o r bias r emove s a g oo d de al of any o f the pr ejudice t hat might otherwi se g o to t he

def endan t. I thi nk th e prob ati ve va l ue outwei ghs i t.” Yet the tr ia

l c ourt allowed the State to present evi dence an d argumen

t t hat went outside t his limit ed pu r

po se an d a llo we d t he St at e t o r ep ea t ed ly su gg es t t he cr ime w as ga ng - r ela t ed
. I t is in cum ben t upo n a trial

court to enf

orce its own orders. The Stat e used the i mproperl y i ntroduced1-07-2406

30

evi dence ab out Cordova to remi nd the j ury that one of the wi tnesses s uggested the shooting was ordered by a m em ber of th e Two-Si x ga ng. Th e State s aid def

endan t woul d be

cons i dered

a hero b y th e Two- Si

x an d th at wi tn es se s were te sti

f y i n g acc ordi

n g to th e Two- Si x pl ay b ook. The S tate aske d th e j ur y n ot to let th

e sy ste m se rve th e a gen da of th e Two- Si

x . M ore ov er , the S tate im properly used the evi

dence of gang m em bersh ip wh en i t stat ed, “Gan

g ban gers like Mi ke Maldonado comm

it horrible crim es l ike this one.” Th e on l y ef f ec t of the se sta tem en ts w asto “ i

nf l am e the p as si

on or arou se the pre j udi ceof the jury agai

nst the defendant, without thro win g any li ght o n the question for decision.” Because t he evide nce in t his case was clos ely balanced , t he ad mission o f evidence t hat sug ges t ed t he sho ot ing was gang -r elat ed c ou ld have a ffect ed t he o ut co me. T her efo re , w e ho ld t hat er ro r in t he admissio n of g ang- re late d evide nce t hat went ou t side t he limi t ed p ur po se o f im

pea chment and impr o pe rar gu men t by t he pr o se cu t o rin ligh t o f t his e vid en ce en t it les de fen da nt t o a n ew t r ial. Altho ugh w e ar e r emanding fo r a new t rial, w e must add re ss t he r emaining issues ra ised by defend ant beca use t hey are likely to re cur at t rial. As an initial mat t er , t he St at e ar gue s t hat t he remai ni ng i ssues have b een wai

ved because defen

dant did not o bj ect at trial and di d not raise these issues in his pos t co nvictio n mot ion. The waiver do ct rine is a limitat ion o n par t ies and not on t he j uri sdi cti on of the re vi ewi ng c ourt. People v. Wheeler , 392 Ill . App. 3d 303, 309, 912 N.E. 2d 681, 687 (2009). Because we are rema ndi ng thi s m atter for a thi

rd trial , in the in terest o f j udic ia

l
econ omy we wi l l cons i der the rem

ai ni ng i ssues. Def endan t’s s econ d con tention rel

ati ng to other-cri

m es e vi den ce is tha t the trial court er re d i n ad m i tti n g ev i den ce

th at a sh otgu n wa s rec ov ered

f rom de f en da n t’s re si den ce . Th

e S tate1-07-2406

31

responds that the shotgun was relevan t t o t he ci rcumstances of Joe Mal

donado’s trip to t he polic e stat ion. We reject the S tat e’s argu ment. As defendant p oints o ut in h is reply brief, the St ate ’s positi on is

that Joe Maldonado accompa nied them to the police station wi

ll in gly , and the evi

dence adduced at trial

establ is hed that the shotgun did not belong to Joe Mal donado. The murder weapon was n

ot a shotgun. Joe Maldonado was not arrest ed or charged wi th any off ense rel ated to th e sh otgu

n . Th eref ore , the on

l y re as on f or th e S tate to i n trod uc e th i s e v i den ce i s to su gg est to t he jur or s t hat if the sho t gun d id no t belong t o J oe Maldo nado , it must belong t o d efenda nt , w ho l i v ed i n th e s am e res i den ce , a

n d s om eon e w h o pos se ss es

a sh otgu n i s m orel i ke l y to co m m i t a mur de rt ha n so meo ne wh o do es no t . Alt ho ug h it is t rue t ha t t his e vid en ce is hig hly p r eju dic ial, it is not nece ssar y for u s t o e ngag e in a disc uss ion o f whet her t he pr ejudicial effect is ou t weighe d by the pro bative v

alue because this evidence is not r elev ant to or p robat iv

e of any issue i n the case and is thus i

nadm is si ble. W e n ow tu rn to de f en da n t’s con ten ti on th at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n al l owi n g th e S tate to bols ter Smi th’s credi bi li ty by the in tro duction of pri

or co nsistent stat em

ents. Because Sm

ith was the only ey ewi tness wh o iden tif ie d defen dant as the sh

oot er and di

d not recant at t rial, her
cred i b i l i ty wa s cri ti ca l l y i m por tan t. D ef en da n t ar gu es th at th e i m por tan ce of Sm i th ’s cred i b i l i ty to the j ury ’s ve rdi ct i s f urth er d em ons trate d by the j ury ’s req ue st d uri ng de l i be rati ons f or a c opy of Sm i th’ s s i gned

sta tem en t to the as sista nt S tate ’s A ttorn ey . The Sta

te re sp onds th

at evi denc e of Sm i th’ s prior con

sistent s tate men ts w asad m i ss i bl e on di rect exam i na ti on to reb

ut the al l eg ati

on of recent fabrication m

ade by defendan t in openin

g stat emen

ts. Evide nce t hat a wit ness mad e a p rio r c ons iste nt st at ement is gene ra lly inadmissible for t he1-07-2406

32

purpos e of

corroborati

ng th e tri al testi mony . Terry , 312 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 995, 728 N.E.2d a

t 678. Su ch evide nce u nfairly enhances t he cr edibility of t he wit ness be cau se a jury is mor e ap t t o be lieve
som ethi ng th at i s rep eated. Terry , 31 2 I l l . A pp . 3d at 9 95 , 72 8 N .E. 2d

at 6 78 . A

n ex ce pti on to t his rule a pplies w hen it is s ugg est ed t hat t he wit ness r ece nt ly f abr icat ed t he t est imony and t he prior statem

en t was m ade b ef ore the m otive to fa

bri cate a rose. People v. Cuadrado , 214 Ill . 2d 79 , 90 , 82 4 N .E. 2d

21 4, 2 21 (2 00 5) . H ere, de f ense cou n se l su gg ested th at th e m oti v e to fab ricate aro se while Sm

ith was bei

ng detained f

or o ver 24 hours at the po li ce stat ion. Defense co unse l po inted ou t t hat in her initial inte rview s wit h po lice, S mith said s he did no t see t he sho ot ing and it was only aft er being de t ained fo r a lengt hy per iod of t ime that she mad e t he sta tem en t to the as sista nt S tate ’s A ttorn ey i m pl i ca ti ng de f en da nt. For the rec en t f ab rica ti on exception to appl

y, def ense couns el

would ne ed to suggest t hat the m ot iv e to fabricate arose after Smi th gave h er statement to t he ass is

tant St ate’s Attorney an

d testifi ed bef ore t he grand jury b

ut before she testif

ie d at tr ia l. However, def

ense couns el

suggested onl

y tha t Smi th in itially deni ed
an y kn o wle dg e b ut t he n la t er mad e in cu lpa t o ry st at eme nt s d ue t o he rlen gt hy d et en t io n. I n t his
cas e, t he pr ior co nsist ent st at ement s implicating d efenda nt in the s hoo t ing wer e made aft er t he al l eged motive to fa

bri cate a rose; thus , the re cen

t fa bri cation ex cepti on does not app l y . The ref ore, ev i den ce of Sm i th’s prior cons i sten

t statem en ts i s i nadm i ssi bl e. Be caus e we a

re reversi ng on other grounds, we need not address def endan t’s contention that the erroneous ad miss io n o f pr io rco nsis t en t st at eme nt s is gr o un ds fo rr ev er sa l. Fi nal ly , defen dant contends that the trial court erred in

allowi ng the State to in

tro duce
m ore th an one pri or s tate men

t to i m pe ach J oe M al donado. Joe

Ma l donado made tw o pri

or1-07-2406

33

st at ement s t hat wer e inco nsist ent wit h his tr ial tes t imony: (1 ) a handw rit t en st at ement pr epa re d by As si stan t State’s A

ttorney Robe rtson a nd s i gne d by

Joe, an d (2) h i s gra nd jury testi mony . Defendant ar gues t hat while the admissi on o f one sta tement t hat is inconsistent with a wit ness’s trial testim ony i s proper, t he i

ntroduct ion of

mul tiple statements that are i

nconsistent with the tria

l t est imony but co nsist ent wit h eac h ot her cr eat es t he sa me bolst er ing effect t hat is pro hibited by the rule against t he i

ntro duction of prior co nsi stent st atements. In People v. Johnson , 38 5 Il l . A pp. 3d 5 85, 898 N.E .2d

658 (20 08) , a d

i f f ere nt p an el of this court rejected a sim

il ar argumen

t. The Johnson court expl ai ned that the def

endan t in that
cas e was conf usi ng pri or consistent

statem en ts wi th pri or inconsistent

statem en ts. The court further ex pla in ed that consistency

is me asured agai

nst the trial

testim ony, n ot agai nst other statem en ts that con

f l i ct wi th the tria l testi mony . Johnson , 385 Ill . App. 3d at 608, 898 N.E .2d at 67 9. W e a gr ee an d h old th at th e i n trod uc ti on of moreth an

on e state men t th at is i n con siste n t wi th
a w it ne ss ’s t r ial t es t imo ny, wh et he ro rno t su ch st at eme nt s a r e c o nsis t en t wit h e ac h o t he r , is proper.
CONCLUSION Because the State in

tro duced gang ev

ide nce that went outside the scope of the tri al
cou rt’ s r ul i ng tha t such ev i denc e w asonl

y ad m i ss i bl e f or th e l i m i ted pur pos e of sh owi ng bi asor mot ive involving t wo wit nesse s who re cant ed a t t rial, a nd impro per ly used t his evidenc e in clos ing
ar gu men t s t o su gg es t t he mur de rwa s g an g r ela t ed wh en t he r e w as no ev ide nc e t o su pp o rt t his theory, def

endan t’s convi ction i s reversed an

d this ma tt er is reman ded for a new trial . Evide nce1-07-2406

34

of the shot gun recovered fro m def endant’s home is in

admissible at the new trial. The Stat e is al so pr o hib it ed fr o m u sin g S mit h’ s p r io rco ns ist en t st at eme nt s t o bo lst er he rcr ed ibilit y at t r ial. Fin ally, t he St at e is pe rmitt ed t o int ro duc e mor e t han o ne pr ior st at ement of a wit ness t hat is incons iste nt wit h t es t imo ny g ive n a t t r ial. Rev erse d an d rem anded wi th di rections. O’M AR A FROSSA

RD, P.J ., and O’ BRIEN , J., con cur.1-07-2406

35 REPORTE R OF DECISION S - ILLINOI S APPELLATE COURT

(Front Sheet to be A

tt ached to Each case)

________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS,

Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. MIKE ANGEL

MAL DONADO, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t.

________________________________________________________________________ No. 1-07- 2406 Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rs t Di stri ct, F ourth Di vi si on January 28, 2010

________________________________________________________________________

JU STI CEGA

LL A GH ER de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t. O’M AR A FROSSA

RD, P.J ., and O’ BRIEN , J., con cur.

________________________________________________________________________

Ap pe al f r o m t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Honorable J

am es Mi chael Obb is h, Judge Presi

din g.

________________________________________________________________________ For APPELLANT, Off

ice of the Stat e Appell

ate Defender, Chicago, IL (Michael J. Pe llet ier , Pa t r icia Un sinn , Je ss ica A. Hu nt er , o f co un se l) For A PPELL EE, Cook Coun

ty S tate's Attorne y , Ch i cago, IL (An i ta Al va rez, Jam es E. Fit zg er ald , Pe t er Fis ch er , o f co un se l)