SECOND DIVISION MARCH 1, 2011 No. 1-08- 0323

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) A ppe al f rom ) the C i

rcui t Court Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) o f Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 04 CR 25947 ) JOHN HERMA

N, ) Ho no r ab le ) Joseph M. Claps, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

JUS TI CE CON NOR S d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Kar nezis and Har ris co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Foll owing a ben ch trial, defen

dant John Herm

an was f ound guil ty of m ulti ple off enses relati ng to crim

in al sexual assaul t, o ff ic ia l m is conduct and kidnapi

ng. The ci

rcuit court entered judgm ent on three counts of aggravated cri mi nal sexual assaul t predicated upon off

ic ia l pol ic e m i sc ond uc t, m ul ti ple c oun ts of cri m i na l sexu al as sa ul t, two c oun

ts of ki dnap i ng an d f i ve cou nts of
o fficia l po lice misc o nd uc t . De fen da nt wa s s en t en ce d t o t hr ee co nse cu t ive se ve n- yea rpr iso n t er ms f or the aggrav

ated cr i m i na l sex ual ass aul t to be serve d con sec

uti ve l y to a four-y

ear pr i son ter m for ki dnapi

ng. Addi tional ly , he was se

ntenced to concurrent 4- year sen tences f or t he off ic ia l
m i scon duct coun ts, f or a total of

25 y ears ’ i m pri sonm en t. On appe al, de f

en da n t m akes th e f oll owi n g c on ten ti on s: (1 ) the ev i den ce

wa s i n suf f i ci en t to1-08-0323

2

support his conv

ictions; (2) the trial c ourt ma de several erroneous evi dentia

ry rul in gs whi ch de nie d h im a fa ir t r ial; an d ( 3) t he St at e e ng ag ed in impe rmiss ible d o ub le e nha nc eme nt wh en it
use d t he ac t of se xual pe net ra t ion t o e st ablish official misco nduc t and a gain t o a ggr avat e t he
cri m i n al sex ual as sa ul t. F or th e f oll owi n g r ea son s, we re v er se th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt. I. BACKG

ROUND Def endan t’s c onv i cti ons a rose f rom a n enc ounter a

t 7759 South

Peoria Street i

n Chi cago. Apr il M. Owne y, a se lf-des cr ibed cr ack co caine a ddict , t est ifi ed t hat she w as se xually assau lted by de f en da nt s ometi me a f ter 5 :25 a.m. i

n h er b ed room on Marc h 1 0, 2 004 , wh

i l e def en da nt wason duty as a C

hicago poli ce off

ic er. Defen

dant’s theory a

t t rial was that there was a consensual sexual encounter on the even

in g of March

9, 2004, prior to hi s bei

ng on duty, an

d that Owney

had
a m otive to fa

bri cate a rape f or mon ey to support he

r drug a ddicti on. Defe ndan t was charged wi

th three counts of aggravated cri mi nal sexual assaul t premi sed on the dis pla y of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(1) (West 2004)), t hree counts of aggrav ated cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t prem i sed on of f i cial m i scon duct (72 0 ILC S 5/12 -14(a) (4) (West 200 4)), three coun ts of a ggrav ated cr i m i na l sex ual ass aul t prem i sed on h i s b ei ng a rmed wi th a f i rearm ( 72 0 I LC S 5 /1 2- 14 ( a) ( 8) ( We st 20 04 ) ) , t wo co un t s o f ag gr av at ed kid napin g p r emis ed o n his be i ng arm ed wi th a f i rea rm (72 0 IL CS 5/1 0-2 (a) (1) , (a ) (3 ), (a ) (6 ) (W es t 200 4)) , f

our c oun ts of official misco nduc t pr emised o n violat ions o f po lice dep ar t ment r ules a nd r egu latio ns, a nd o ne count of offi

cial misconduct premi sed upon t he aggravated cr im in al sex ual assaul t (7 20 ILCS 5/33-3 (b) (W

est 200 4)). Be ca us e def en da n t ch al l en ge s th e s uf f i ci en cy of th e ev i den ce

ag ai n st h i m , a com pl ete1-08-0323

3

recitation of

the facts adduced at tr ia

l i s neces sary

to a di sposition of the appeal . At the bench t rial, O wney t est ifi

ed t hat she w as a 42- year- old cr ack co caine a ddict who had s t op ped using o ne mo nt h be fo r e t r ial. I n Ma r ch o f 20 04 , she lived in ase co nd
- flo o rap ar t men t at 77 59 So ut h P eo r ia Street in Chi cago with h

er daughter, grandchi

ldren and son-i n-law. She som

etim es sm oked $80 to $100 wort h of crack e

very ot her day . As sh

e was not empl

oyed, she used m

oney she obtai ned f rom b ab y si tti n g h er da ug h ter s’ ch i l dr en an d oth er ch i l dr en an d h er gov er n men t so ci al se cu ri ty check to purc

ha se h er drug s. Owne y began s mok ing cr ack in her ho me so metime aft er midnight o n Mar ch 10 , 2 004 . At about 1 a.m., while

the fam il y s le pt, Owney purch

ased two bags of crack f

or $20 from her deliver y man in f

ro nt of he r a par t ment bu ilding and we nt back t o he r a par t ment t o s mok e. She in itially testifi ed that she rem

ai ned i n he r apartment sm

oking un til about 5 a.m. Despi

te her testim ony f rom a pri or depo si

tion whe re she den

ie d that she ever di

d “rocks,” Owney ack now ledge d at t rial t hat she w as he avily under t he influence o f dru gs d ur ing t hat night . At one point duri ng he r testimony

, she stated that she had h er “rocks” del

iv ered and that i

t t ook her drug del i very man som e ti me to get there , depe

ndi ng on how f ar aw ay he wasf rom th e apa rtme nt. Ho weve r, she lat er t est ifi

ed t hat she w ent ou t fou r o r five t imes tha t night t o bu y “ro cks .” She origi na l l y tes ti f i ed sh e h ad sm oke d s i x to s even

“rocks” of coc ai ne dur i ng the f our- hou r pe riod from 1 a.m. un til 5 a.m. an d then l ater t estif ie d that she sm

oked six to ei ght “rocks” duri

ng that peri od. On di rect, she testif

ie d that at about 5 a.m., every one was still

asleep, and sh

e teleph oned her del iv ery m an f or more drugs usin

g her daughter’s c ell ph

one. Her deli

very ma n then deliv ered1-08-0323

4

a s ec ond ba tch of dru gs . Sh e b eg an to sm okeag ai n, bu t the n r eal ize d s he

ha d ru n ou t of cigar et t es a nd alco hol, which she liked t o u se t og et her wit h t he dr ugs . O wney left t he cr ack in the ap ar t men t o n he rbe dr o o m dr es se r . Sh e w en t o ut t o ge t so me c iga r et t es an d a lco ho l fro m a “b oot le gger,” whom sh

e descri bed as s omeone wh

o sold liquor f

rom his house wh

en the stores
were closed. Sh

e the n enc ountere d def

endan t. As s he wa lke d n o r t h o n H als t ed St r ee t t o wa r ds a g as st at io n, a p o lice ca rca me southb ound a

nd m ade a U-turn goi ng th e wron g way down a one -way

street. A pol i ce of f i cer, alone in the ve hicle, st op ped her . O wney wa s abo ut a half block fro m her ho me and a cr os s t he st re et fro m the p olice s t at ion p ar king lo t . T he o ffi cer ask ed he r w hat she w as d oing ou t side. She t old him she was g oing t o g et so me cigar et t es. He t hen as ked her if she was p ro st itu t ing, a nd she said “no .” He a ske d her if she had a ny identificat ion. She r eplied t hat she d id no t have a ny i den tif i cation on h

er person. H e told

he r to get in the v ehi cle. She te sti f i ed at tri al tha t sh e w al ke d a roun d the c ar a

nd got i n on the rea r pa ss en ger s i deof t he vehicle. When she g ot into t he bac kse at of t he po lice vehicle, s he move d so me pap er s and “stuf f.” She di d not recall

tell in g the police that she sat beh in d the driv er’s si de. She was then im peached wi

th her pri or depo si

tion testim

ony w here sh e had testif

ie d that she got in an

d sat be hind t he dr ive r ’s sid e. Sh e d id n o t se e a bla ck “bo o mbo x” r ad io o n t he ba ck se at dir ec t ly behind t he dr iver’s sea t . S he also t est ifi ed t hat t he vehicle ha d a c age in it and t hat it w as no t t he fi rst t im e she h ad been in a caged poli

ce veh ic le . The other t im

es she had b een i

n a caged pol

ic e vehi cle sh e had to be let o ut by poli ce because she was i

n han dcuff s. Acco rd ing t o O wney, t he o ffi cer t hen as ked for her add re ss and she t old him where s he1-08-0323

5

li ved. He drove to her buildi ng an d followed h

er up the stairs to her apartmen t. Owney i

dentif ie d def endan t in court as th

e pol i ce of f i cer that esc orted he

r ba ck to he r apar tme nt. Ow n ey un l ock ed th e door to h

er ap ar tmen t, a n d j us t i n si de th e f ron t door wa s th e door to her bedroom, wh

ic h was a f ew fe et away f

rom her daugh

ter’s bedroom. Owney

was nerv ous be caus e sh

e rem em bered she l ef t the cra ck i n h er b edroom

and though

t she would be arrested. They went i nto her bedroom and def

endan t closed the door behi

nd hi m. Sh e went to her dresser to get h er i den ti f i ca ti on out of h er pu rs e. She h

ea rd th e s oun d of th e n ai l th at s er v ed as a l atch to keep her be droom d

oor cl osed a

nd s he turne d aroun

d. Def endan t told h er to take of

f her cl othes. He had a gun

in hi s han d down by

the side of hi

s l eg. Af ter bein g shown a ph

ot ograph, she stated t ha t it r es emb led a s ec o nd sma ll blac k g un de fen da nt ha d in an an kle ho lst er . Sh e d id n o t r ec all wh ethe r she told the of f i cers at the p oli

ce station that sh e sa w a s i l ver gun i n the an kle hols ter. She too k off

her cl ot hes. Def

endan t had undressed a

nd sh e noticed h

e had an eagl e tatt oo. He to ld h er to perform oral

sex on h im whi le the gun was s

til l i n hi s han d. He calle d her a bi

tch and a wh o r e, fo r ce d h er t o lie d o wn , an d s lap pe d h er br ea st s. He t he n g r ab be d h is nig ht st ick , inse r t ed it i nto he r va gi na , and then pe

rf orme d va gi na l i nterc ourse f

rom b ehi nd h er. When defendan t was fin ish ed, he to ok o ff

a condo m an

d threw it in her garbage. He also had a paper towel wh

ic h he used to wipe off

the ni ghtstick an

d threw the paper to wel

in her garbage. He threatened to kil l Ow ney if she told an

ybody ab out the in

ci dent. Owney

crawle d in to bed an d cried. Own

ey testifi ed that she nev

er consented to any of

the sexual

acts on March 10 , 20 04
. Sh e d en ied ha ving ev er met de fen da nt pr io rt o t ha t da y and de nie d e ve rha ving him in her apar tme nt pri or to that day
.1-08-0323

6

She wasnot sure

how l ong she stay ed i n b ed cry i ng, s tatin g “ i t coul d ha ve be en an hour, t wo . I ’m not for sur e. ” She t hen t oo k t he co ndo m ou t of t he ga rba ge a nd pu t it in her pur se a nd le ft i t t here i n he r bedroom as proof that the offi cer raped her be cause sh

e knew h er “word was not go od enough” becaus e she was a crack addi ct and he was

a poli ce off ic er. She testif

ie d that she di d not make an

out cry to her f

am il y a t t he tim e the assaul

t was happeni

ng be cause sh

e was em ba rrass ed an

d asha med. Wi th respect to the tim

in g of the enc ounter, she stated t hat she coul d not give a

n exact t ime as t o w hen t he as sau lt o ccu rr ed be cau se she didn’t loo k at a clo ck. Ho weve r, aft er being shown cel l ph one records from h

er daughter’s cel

l ph one, she ch

anged h er testim ony. Sh e then stated t hat she telephoned h er drug deli

very ma n at 5:25 a.m. an

d that t he ass aul

t o ccurred after that t el ephone cal

l to her del

iv ery m an. She stated t hat she recei ved h er crack wi

thin le ss than 30 mi nutes f rom the tim

e she ca ll ed hi m b ecause h

e was “ al ways around.” She then

went back ups t airs t o s mok e ag ain, a nd r ealized she ha d r un o ut of c igar et t es a nd alco hol. She t hen left t he ap ar tmen t an d w as wal ki n g a b out th re e or f our m i n ute s w h en de f en da n t sto pp ed h er on th e stre et. Owney deni ed tell in g any police off

ic ers that the assaul

t happened b etween 3:30 and 4:30
a.m . She may ha ve told p oli ce that the a ssa

ul t occurred

som eti me b etween 4: 30 an

d 5:30 a.m ., and then in dic ated, “I bel

ie ve. I don’t know. I belie ve I did. I said around ab out 5:00, 5:30.” Owney recalle d bei

ng i nterviewed by

an Internal

Af fai rs Di vi si on (IAD) in

vestigator . When

asked wh ethe r she rec al

l ed tel l i ng th e IA D i nv esti gator that th e as sau

l t occurred

wel l be f ore 5:30a.m ., she st at ed t hat she d id no t kno w wha t t ime she t old t he invest igat or . S he did no t believe t hat she to ld h im a tim e. At a prior deposition, Owney was asked wh

ether any thin g happen ed to her1-08-0323

7

so metime ar ou nd 4 a .m. and t hen r elayed t he fact s re late d t o t he enc ou nt er wit h defend ant . T he tria l court appe ars to hav e adm i tted thi s ev

i den ce f or its “l i m i ted” i m peac hm en t val ue. Ow ne y fur t he rt es t ified t ha t aft er t he as sa ult , she lo o ke d a t he rclo ck t o se e w ha t t ime it
was t o d et er mine whet her t he liquo r st or e wo uld be o pen. When she s aw t hat it w as 7 a. m. she l ef t her a partm en t to go t o the l

i quor store to get som

e al cohol , but the l

i quor store was cl

osed. She then wen t to t he pol i ce station

to report the as sau

l t. Af ter arrivi ng at the station some

tim e between 7 a.m. and 7:30 a.m ., she told the poli ce wh at ha d ha ppen ed to he r. She den i ed b ei ng “ hi gh” wh en she wen t to t he poli ce station
. She was pl

aced i n a sm all room, whe

re she testif

ie d she rem

ai ned f or hours. She kept t elli

ng them t hat she ha d bee n ra ped and t hat she ne ede d t o g o t o t he ho spit al. T hey kep t “badg er ing” her and “deg ra ding” he r a nd “t alking abo ut [he r] and s hit as if [she] was n’t nobo dy.” At s ome p oint , she teleph oned her brother f

rom the station. Ini

tial ly , she testif

ie d that a lawy

er arrived and tal

ked with h er at t he station, but sh

e l ater stat ed that test im

ony was m

is taken and that her attorney m et her at the h

ospi tal
. A f ter ta ki ng he r to th e h osp i tal , Ow ne y tes ti f i ed tha t the de tec ti ve s took he r to a l i quor st or e. She init ially

st at ed t hat t hey pur chas ed a beer for her , a nd t hen had her view a lineup at t he 11 1th Street police station. Owney la ter t estif ie d that t he b eer was purchas ed after sh e l eft her ap artm en t an d n ot af ter s he l ef t the hos pi tal . Sh e then tes ti f i ed tha t the de tec ti ve s d i d n ot purch ase the a l cohol f or her a t the l i quor store, b

ut i nstead ga ve her the m

oney to purchase

i t. Ac cordi ng to Ow ney , the detecti

ve ask ed h er wh ethe r she neede d som

ethi ng f or her n erves. Own ey told th e detec tiv e sh e neede d a b eer a

nd th e detec tiv e b ought h

er a b eer.1-08-0323

8

Owney ide ntif ie d defen dant in the li neup as t he man who sexu ally assault ed he r. Afte r t he li neup, she was al

one i n a room wi

th a fem al e Af rican -Am erica n detective, the sam

e detective that pur chas ed t he bee r fo r he r. Owne y tes t ifi ed t hat t he de t ect ive offer ed he r a bribe o f $5, 000 and said, “You’re goin

g to be the f

irst bl ack woman ’s pussy

wort h $5,000.” Owney

deni ed ever aski ng the detectiv

e for a $5,000 pay

me nt to “m ake thi s go away.” Sh

e deni ed ever “ hi gh-f iv in g” any of the i nve stigators in

the case. Acc ording to Owney, the detective attempted to bribe h er and “ hi gh-f iv e” her, but Owney

never raise d her han

d to slap “h

igh -fi ve” wi th the detective. Du ri ng he r i nte rvi ew wi th p ol i ce , sh

e i ni ti al l y ref us ed to tel l the pol i cewhere the con dom was out o f f

ear. At some poin

t at t he polic e station, she ca ll ed her ne igh

bor to contact her daughter and i

nstructed her daughter to hide the condom . Owney to ld h er to get the condom out of h er purs e an

d to use h er discre tion to put it som

ewh ere. At trial , Owney

al so iden tif ie d several

exh ibits wh ic h sh e descri bed as ph ot ographs taken du ri n g th e i n v esti ga ti on wh en th e p oli ce

took h er b ack to h er ap ar tmen t an d m ade h er “re -e n act” t he se xual enc ou nt er wit h defend ant . O wney’s law yer, who was pr ese nt at t he ap ar t ment w ith a
medi cal studen t, was tak i ng th e “ re-en actm en t” photographs

of h er on h er b ed. She den ie d giv in g police consen

t t o search her h

ouse and stated that t he consen t form was signed b y h er daughter. Owney

deni ed tell in g any off ic er that t he ass aul

t o ccurred after she

had go ne o ut at 11 p .m. She a ckno wledg ed t hat she w as w ith her neighbo r S t eve S late r “u nder t he po rc h” so metime du ring d aylight ho ur s o n eithe r Ma rc h 9 or 10
. Chi cago poli ce off

ic er Geraldi

ne Robi nson testif

ie d that on March 10, 2004, she was assi gned to the front desk at the six th district poli ce station. At about 7:15 a.m., Owney1-08-0323

9

ap pr o ac he d t he de sk aft er t ur ning ar o un d s ev er al t imes an d lo o kin g o ut t he win do w. Ow ne y t o ld her t hat she w ant ed t o r epo rt t hat she w as r ape d. When ask ed w hen it o ccu rr ed, “[Ow ney] g ave [R ob i n son ] a ti me a rou n d 3 :3 0, 3 :4 5 a .m ., s om

ew h ere wi th i n th at wi n dow .”A

t so me p oi

n t, Ro binson w as t old t o s it w ith O wney in an inte rview ro om. She p ro vided O wney wit h a t elepho ne and Owne y made abo ut 8 t o 1 0 t elepho ne ca lls. Owne y never ment ioned t o he r t hat t he
ass aul t occurred

af ter 5:30a.m . Ow ne y ’s da ugh ter, A pri l Shonta e O wn ey , testi f i ed tha t sh e w as21 y

ea rs ol d a t the ti me of trial . In Ma rc h 20 04 , s h e l

i v ed wi th h er ch i l dr en an d h er b oyf rien d a t 77 th and Peoria wi

th her mot her . S he wa s no t employed . S he ar rived home a t abo ut 11 p .m. on M ar ch 9, 200 4. She testifi ed that her mother was b aby si tt in g her chi ldren . However, her mother testif ie d that she was ba bysit t ing he ro t he rda ug ht er E r ica ’s ch ildr en an d d en ied t ha t she wa s ba bysit t ing Ap r il Sho nt ea’s childre n t hat evening. Apr il Shont ea fur t her t est ifi ed t hat she sa w her mot her leave t he hou se a t ar ou nd 11 :3 0 p. m. Apr il Shont ea w ent t o s leep a nd wa s aw ake ned a t abo ut 5 a. m. by her cell phone that she shared with her mother . When April Shont ea went to her mot her’s b ed room to retriev e th e p h on e, h er

moth er wa s n ot th ere. A

pri l Sh on tea took th e p h on e b ack to her ro om and answ er ed it . S he ga ve t he pho ne t o he r bo yfriend bec aus e t he ca ll was for him. She then wen t back to sl eep. She was awa

kened agai

n at about 8:30 a.m. by

the nei ghbor downstai

rs ban gin g on her door . Apri l Sh

ontea’s m ot her had c alle d the nei

ghbor aski

ng to speak to April Sh

ontea. After spe aking t o he r mo t her , Ap ril Sho nt ea r et ur ned u pst airs, obt ained he r mo t her ’s pu rse fro m the be dr o o m flo o ran d r emo ve d t he co nd o m wh ich wa s w r ap pe d in a t iss ue fr o m t he pu r se an d p ut it1-08-0323

10

in her p ant s po cke t . Whe n po lice arr ived she t hen signe d a s t at ement t o a llow a s ear ch o f the hou se. Afte r t he po lice req ues t ed t he co ndo m, she t oo k it ou t of he r p oc ket and t hre w it on t he dres ser. Seve ra l hosp ital p er so nnel te st ifi ed. Reg iste re d nur se Fr anklin Anicet o t est ifi ed t hat he work ed i n th e h osp i tal em erg en cy room i n Marc h 2 004 . He

wa s on duty at a bou t 9:3 0 a .m . on Mar ch 10 , 2 004 , a s a t riag e nur se w or king t he fro nt des k. Dur ing his inter view wit h Owne y, she told h i m that the ass aul t hap pen ed aroun d 4 a.m that da y . Vir gilio Nid ea I I I t es t ified t ha t o n Ma r ch 10 , 20 04 , he wa s a r eg ist er ed nu r se wo rkin g in th e emergen cy

room at th e h osp i tal . In tak i n g a h i sto ry f rom Ow n ey , s h e tol d h i m th at a wh i te o ffice rpic ke d h er up at ar o un d 4 a. m. an d t o o k h er t o he rap ar t men t . Sh e s aid t he as sa ult happen ed around 4:30 a.m. Own ey to ld h im she s aw a nam

e, “Herm an.” She told h

im that defend ant “sho ved” his nights t ick “o n” her vagina o nce. He ha d o ra l sex wit hou t a co ndo m and then he had va gi na l sex wi th her onc e wh

i l e wea ri ng a cond om. S he com plai ne d of pai n. Pac i ta D eJesustes ti f

i ed tha t sh e w asa re gi stered

nu rs e w orki ng i n th e emerg en

cy room of t he ho spit al on M ar ch 10 , 2 004 . S he pr epa re d t he se xual as sau lt evid ence kit for Owne y. She reported n

o vi si bl e i nj uri es. Dr. Joseph Baj o t estif

ie d that Owney

presented to him

in the em ergency roo m on March 10, 200 4. H e took

a h i story an d s he i ni ti al l y tol d h i m tha t the as sa ul t occurred

at 4 :30 a.m. on Mar ch 10 , 2 004 . Aft er examining her a nd as king her add itio nal que st ions, she lat er t old him the
as sa ul t occurred

at 5 a.m. He

docum en ted both ti mestha t sh e i nd i ca ted to hi m . He di d n ot do cument any co mplaint o f pain. H is examinat ion r evea led no lacer at ions, bloo d o r d ischar ge a nd1-08-0323

11

a no rmal anat omy for her bod y. His finding t hat t her e we re no visible injuries c ou ld be co nsist ent wit h e it he rno nc o nse nsu al o rco nse nsu al s ex . Ba jo ind ica t ed t ha t a n igh t st ick may no t ne ce ss ar ily
reveal i nj ury ; i t depen ded on the ty pe of f orce us ed an

d the si ze of the n i ghtstick. Lieut enant Ger ald Ko ch t est ifi ed t hat he wa s t he wa t ch co mmander in charg e o f the stati on on th

e m i dni ght shi f t from 10 p.m. on Ma

rch 9, 2004 , to 6 a.m . on Ma rch 10, 200 4. De fen da nt wa s a ss ign ed t o be at 62 0 a nd wa s r es po nsib le a s a field se r ge an t fo rmo nit o r ing cr ime condi tions i n the f ie ld. Bas ed upon the poli ce departmen

t att endan ce and as signm

ent record, de f en da n t wa s a ss i gn

ed to v eh i cl e N o. 8 18 1. Gen

eral l y , a f i el d s erge an t i s s uppos ed to att em pt to make cont act at least twice with eac h beat t hat is assigned to him . Acco rding to defendant’s sup er visor ’s log , d efenda nt did no t make p er so nal co nt act wit h eac h member o f his tea m dur ing his sh i f t bas ed on

thei r be i ng n o entry f or bea ts 614 a nd 6 22. Ge

neral l y , f i eld sergean

ts are required to make en

tries on thei

r logs every 45 m

in utes. Defen

dant’s l og did not have

entries
every 45 m i nu tes . How ever, Koch

di d n ot know if

de f en da nt’ s l og w asac cu

rate or how de f en da n t h an dl ed h i s p ap er wor k. K och sa w def en da n t at th e s i xth di stri ct p ol i cesta

ti on so metime befo re midnight. At a ro und 3 or 3: 30 a .m. , he and d efenda nt had lunc h t og et her in the stati on i n h i s of f i ce. De f endan t le f t Koch ’soff

i ce a t about 3:3 0 a.m
. Cap t ain Jo sep h C. Vac lavik t est ifi ed t hat he wa s t he wa t ch co mmander and c apt ain on t he day sh i f t from 6 a.m . unti

l 2 p.m . At ab out 7:30 a.m on Ma rch 10, 200 4, he

i nterv i ewed Own ey . Sh e a pp ea r ed dis t r ac t ed , un fo cu se d, an d “ no t pa rt icu lar ly flue nt . ” S he r ep o r t ed t he se xu al a ss au lt
as o cc ur r ing “so met ime be t we en 4 a nd 4: 30 a. m. ” O wn ey t o ld h im t ha t de fen da nt ha d a sma ll silver gu n in an ankle ho lste r. Vac lavik or der ed d efenda nt t o t he st at ion at 7: 45 a .m. and he1-08-0323

12

arri ve d at 8 a.m. Wh

en def endan t arri ve d at the di strict, def

endan t di d not hav e an

an kle hols ter. Defe ndan t’s veh ic le No. 8181, was a noncaged veh ic le . Defen

dant’s l ogs in dic ate that at 1:30
a. m . he w as

at 7 6th an d P eor i a a n d a t 3: 30 a. m . he w as

at 7 9th an d Rac i ne . Vacl av i k di d n ot know wh ethe r the l ogs we re ac curate . Sergeant Tyrone R. Jordan, an in vestigator from

the IAD of the Ch

ic ago polic e de pa r t men t , t es t ified t ha t he wa s a ss ign ed t o inve st iga t e a ca se invo lving de fen da nt . Du r ing his in terview wi

th Owney , she told hi

m that sh e was raped around 3 or 3:30 a.m. and that she was offer ed a bribe. Jo rd an also t est ifi ed t hat defend ant was bou nd by t he r ules, re gulat ions a nd gene ra l or der s o f the Chicag o p olice d epa rt ment a nd t hat Rules 2, 10 a nd 36 wer e in effect at t he t ime of t he o ccu rr ence . Jo rd an fur t her t est ifi ed t hat Rule 3 6 wa s a “p olicy” in the dep ar t ment pertai n i n g to h av i n g m em b er s of th e op pos i te s ex i n a p oli ce v eh i cl e. De f en da n t th en sti pul ate d to the cont ents of the rules. No evidence was presented o n the proce ss used to enact t hese particul ar rul es or pol i cies a nd n o evi den ce was pre sen

ted to estab l i sh

by whom th ese rules w ere promulgated. Evide nce t echnician Micha el Bloc k t est ifi ed t hat he r eco ver ed a co ndo m wra ppe d in a “paper wi pe” i n a pl astic b ag from

a dresser i

n Own ey ’s b edroo m. He di

d not o bserve any

rock cocaine i n the bedroo m. Addi

tionall y, f rom the front bedro om he recovered paper to welettes, pa ckag i ng f or a c ond om , a c i ga

rette bu tt, som e b eddi ng , an d a rob e. H e p hotog

raphe d the door nail that was use d as a “t empo ra ry loc k” fo r t he bed ro om d oo r. He a lso p hot og ra phed t he in terior and exteri or o f pol

ic e veh ic le No. 8181. T he vehi

cl e di d not have a cage . He observed a duf f l e b ag i n th e f ron t se at a nd rec ove red a n i gh tsti ck f rom the ve hi cl e. H e p roce ss ed

the ex teri or1-08-0323

13

o f t he ve hic le fo r

fing er pr int s a nd su bmit t ed fo ur fing er pr int s s uit ab le fo rev alu at io n. He co uld not recall whether he

processed the i

nterior of the ve

hicl e for f in gerprin ts. He also recovered a “bo o mbo x” fr o m t he r ea rse at o f t he ve hic le b eh indt he dr ive r ’s sid e. He did no t r ec all i nv en toryi ng a n a nkl e hols ter f rom th e v ehi cle. T wo DN A a na lyst s, Je nnife rBe ll and Br ianSc ho o n, we r e q ua lified as ex pe r t s in fo r en sic DNA and testif i ed reg ardi

ng th ei r resp ecti ve testi ng of the c ondom, towel ettes an d ni ghtstick. Jennifer B ell tes t ifi

ed t hat she fo und s emen o n t he co ndo m and o ne o f the t hre e t ow elet t es. She al so swabb ed and tested the ni ghtstick at the han

dle , the tip, and a thi

rd area for vagi

nal
sec re t ions. The se t est re sult s we re inconc lusive. B ell furt her t est ifi ed t hat defend ant matc hed t he male DNA p ro fil

e o n t he co ndo m and t ow elet t e. Owne y cou ld no t be exc luded as t he se co nd DNA p ro fil

e o n t hese items. Addit ionally, Bell fou nd a s wab fr om a p ar t of t he night st ick t o be
co nsist ent wit h Owne y’s DNA p ro fil e. Scho on t est ifi

ed t hat t he DN A pr ofile fro m the t ip and han dle of the ni ghtstick m

atched Owney

. It was also stipul

ated that t he f

in gerprin ts recovered f rom th e sq uad c ar di d not m atch def endan t or Owne

y . Fo r t he de fense, re t ired Chicag o p olice d et ect ive Er nest Bell te st ifi ed t hat he had been a po lice officer for 30 yea rs a nd a d et ect ive for 21 yea rs. He w as o n dut y on Ma rc h 10, 200 4, and
wasass i gne d to work on a c ase i nv olv i ng a l l egati ons a gai nst def endan t. He an d hi s pa rtner, Detec tiv e Con stan ce B ested a, m et wi th Ow ney at the h ospi tal . Own ey ’sattorney

waspres en

t. Af ter counsel ref

reshed h is recollection f

rom a deposi

tion taken A

pril 3, 2007, Bell

testifi ed that Owney to ld h im that t he en

counter with def

endan t o ccurred at about 10 p. m. on March 9, 2004, when s he we nt ou t t o g et cigar et t es. Afte r his r eco llectio n was re freshe d fro m the d epo sitio n, he1-08-0323

14

also t esti f i ed sh e l ate r tol d h i m th at sh e w en

t out a t ab out 1 1 p .m . a

n d th e rea son wa s n ot to purch ase cigarettes , but to purcha se d rugs . Be l l f ur th er testi f i ed th at O wn ey an d h er attor n ey wa n ted to go b ack to h

er ap ar tmen t to show them

where the ass aul

t t ook place. Bef

ore Owney

in form ed Bel l h ow the doo r “l

ocked” with a nai l, h e di d not o bserve any

thin g that would lock the door t o her bedroom. On the way fr o m t he ho sp it al t o he rap ar t men t , Ow ne y we nt t o t he st o r e t o ge t so me c iga r et t es . Sh e c ame ba ck wi th a dri nk i n a pa pe r b ag an d s tood i n f ron t of the store an d dr an k i t. Be l l sm el l ed al coh ol on her breath wh

en sh e got back in

the car. His

police report did n

ot refl ect that Owney h

ad dr an k a lco ho l. Ne it he rhe no rhis p ar t ne rga ve Ow ne y mo ne y t o pu r ch as e t he alc o ho l. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, B ell sta t ed t hat he had never had a victim re enac t t he cr ime in a crim in al sexual assaul t case, but that he has h

ad vi ctim s dem onstrate a crim

e to him quite a f ew tim es. He acknowledged that exhi bi ts 13 and 14 were photographs of Owney with h im beh in d her wh ere sh e w as

re en acti n g th e a ss aul t. H i s p ar tn er di d n ot tel l h i m th at Own ey h ad atte m pte d to
see k mo ney in exchang e fo r d ro pping t he ca se. Ho weve r, on r edir ect he st at ed t hat he sub seq uen tly l earn ed that Own

ey had sol i ci ted a b ri be , and tha

t he re ported i t to hi s su perv i sors. On recross, he ackn

owledged that he was

aware that brib ery was a Cl ass 2 f el ony. W hen asked wh y h e d i d n ot i m med i ate l y ar re st Own ey , he state d th

at i t wa s a n al l eg ati on wh i ch h e rep orte d to the su pervi sor i n th e of f i cef or f urth er i nv es ti ga ti on. A s a

res ul t of hi s rep orti ng the al l eg ati on there was an i

nve stigati on. When

asked about the resul

t o f the i nve stigati on, the court sustain ed the State ’sobj ection, rul

i ng th at the re sul

t was n ot materi al
. Chi cago poli ce detective C onstance Besteda testif ie d that she had b een a Ch ic ago olic e1-08-0323

15

off i cer f or 22 y ears and an Are a 2 detecti

ve f or 12 1⁄2 y ears . On Marc h 10 , 2004, she was assigne d t o inves t igat e allega t ions o f sexua l assau lt ag ainst defend ant . S he and her par t ner went to the hospi

tal to intervi

ew Owney. Owney ’s attor ney s and a m edi cal student were present on her behalf. Aft er Det ect ive Best eda ’s r eco llectio n was re freshe d fro m her p ro gr ess r epo rt , she tes ti f i ed tha t Ow ne y tol d her th

at s he went ou t an d enc oun tere d de f en da nt a roun d 10 p.m. on March 9, 2004. Owney

to ld h er she was

on her way

to get somethi

ng to eat. Besteda deni

ed that she an d he r partner gav

e Own ey money to purchase

cigarettes . Own

ey returned f

rom th e store wit h so me c iga r et t es an d a t all c an o f be er . Sh e d r an k it o ut o f a p ap er ba g. Be st ed a c o uld sme ll al coh ol on Own ey ’s br ea th w he n s he retu rned to the ve hi cl e. B es ted a di d n

ot stopOw

ne y f rom dri nki ng th e al cohol an d di d not note it i

n h er progre ss re

port. Best eda t hen t est ifi

ed t o a late r c onve rsa t ion t hat day at t he po lice st at ion. She a nd Owney were si tt in g al one i n the conf erence room. No formal

in terview was occurring. Own ey indicat ed t hat she w as t ired of w aiting ar ou nd, and w ant ed t o lea ve. Owne y to ld her t hat “if he pai d h er , s h e c oul

d m ake th i s w h ol e c as e g o away.”W

h en Be ste da aske d h er wh at sh e m ea n t, Owne y to ld her t hat if defenda nt paid he r $ 5, 000 she w ou ld t ell everyo ne t hat it d id no t happ en, and s he wo uld make t he who le case “go awa y.” O wney ment ioned t hat t he $5 ,0 00 w ou ld be “t he most expen

si ve pi ece of puss

y tha t [defendan

t] had ever had.” Best eda t est ifi

ed t hat Owne y tho ught t hat it w as “k ind o f humor ou s” a nd Be st eda t hou ght that Owney

said it i n a h umorous fas

hion. Accordin

g to Besteda, Owney

rais ed her ha

nd an d they sl apped a “h

igh -fi ve.” As a resul t o f wh at Owney to ld h er, Detect iv

e Besteda documen

ted Owne y’s st at ement in her p ro gr ess r epo rt and t old her bos s. S he de nied eve r o ffering Ow ney any1-08-0323

16

am ount o f m oney durin g the in vestigation of the case. She speci fi cally deni ed that she eve

r off ered to pay Owney

$5,000 and deni

ed that she was l

yi ng to help de fen

dant. Besteda
ac kn owl edge d that s he

ha d a rre st p owers i f

sh e s aw a c ri me b ei ng com m i tted a nd tha t sh e di d n ot arrest Owney

for bri bery . She al so acknowledge d that when there were al le gations that she

had att empted to brib e Owney there was an internal

aff airs i nvestigation. Wh

en asked by

defense counsel about the results of that i nve stigati on, the court sustain ed the State’s objection, ruli ng that the re sul ts of th at i nv esti gation had n

o bea ri ng on the c ase . Besteda further testif

ie d that she had kn

own defe ndan t for about fiv

e or six ye ars. He was
a s up er v i sor on som e c as es th at sh e w orked

on wi th oth er of f i cers . Sh e den i ed wor ki n g w i th defend ant dire ct ly on t he “bus st op ra pes ,” but ack now ledge d t hat in her d epo sitio n t est imony she sta ted tha t sh e th ough t he wa s a good s upe rvi sor be ca us e of the wa y he ha nd l ed the “bu s stop rape” cases an

d because of the way

he preserv

ed the evi dence. The i

ndi vi dual s workin

g under hi m we re very professi onal and sh e thought it was a si

gn of a good supervi sor. She further testi f i ed at trial that sh e worke d wi

th de f endan t’s wi f e on occ asi

on. I n t he pr io rcr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult ca se s s he ha d w o rke d o n, Be st ed a n ev er ha d t he vic t im re-enact the crim

e. Whe n asked wh

y i t was that Owney h

ad to r eenact the cri

me , Besteda expl ai ned that they

did n ot in itiate the reenactmen

t, st ating “

this wasn’ t o ur prompting.” Be steda guessed that when

they got to the apartmen

t, Owney jumpe d on the bed an d started showing them what had h

appened. This occurred after Owney had drank the

beer. Besteda f

urther ack now ledge d t hat exhibits 1 3, 14, and 1 5 we re pho t og ra phs o f Owney and her par t ner Det ect ive Bel l
.1-08-0323

17

On redi rect, she testif

ie d that Owney ’s l

awy er had the cam

era and was taki

ng the pi ctures and that the detectives

never asked Owne

y to perform a

ny of the acts. Besteda i

ndicated that
no bo dy a sk ed Ow ne y t o po se as de pic t ed in t he ph o t o gr ap hs. Be st ed a a sk ed if t he law yer co uld stoptak i ng the pictu res be ca us e she di d n ot wa nt h er p i ctu re on the In tern et. The re wasalso a me dic al student there with Own

ey ’s l awy ers. The m

edi cal student was not pro vi

din g any me dic al attenti on to Own

ey at the h ospi tal or at her apartm en t. Chicag o p olice d et ect ive Wil liam Fi lipiak t est ifi

ed t hat he wa s ass igned t o inves t igat e t he alle gations m

ade agai nst def endan t and was the lead detective i n the case . He in

terviewe d Own ey . Fi l i pi ak al so wen t wi th the f orens i cs expe

rts to exa m i ne the c ar as si

gne d to def

endan t. He o bser ved a n RCA r adio in the ba cks eat . H e fur t her t est ifi ed t hat Owne y was co op er at ive t hro ugho ut t he invest igat ion u nt il about 6: 20 p .m. in the e vening. He w ent t o O wney’s a par t ment and d id no t see any cra ck in t he ap ar t ment. Owne y did no t sign a c riminal complaint . T he
com plai nt wa s si gne d by Lieuten an t Ram i rez. Defe ndan t t estif ie d that he had b een a se

rgeant with the C

hicago poli ce departmen

t for 10 yea rs . H e w as

42 yea rsol d a n d w as as si gn ed to th e s i xth police di strict on Hal sted Str eet. On Ma rc h 9, 2 00 4, h

e l ef t h i s h om e a b out 1 0: 30 p.m

. a n d w en t to Ow n ey ’s ap ar tmen t in hi s own private vehi

cle. He was not o n duty at t he tim e. He was wearing hi s police i ssued bl ue pants, bl ack s hoes , a wh

i te T-sh i rt and a j acke t. He had m et Owney quite a f ew tim es when she would go t o t he conv eni ence store near the poli ce station. He had prev

iousl y s to pped by her place, and h

ad been in side about three weeks
ear lier, w hen t hey had s ex t og et her . T hey wer e “sex fr iends. ” On t he pr eviou s o cca sion, she1-08-0323

18

invit ed him ins ide an d h e s ec ur ed t he do o rwit h a na il o n t he do o rfr ame . T he y eng ag ed in for eplay, or al sex and inter co ur se. The for eplay include d us e o f sex t oys. He u sed a co ndo m and t oo k it wit h him after t he enc ou nt er beca use he wa s uns ur e if Owney wa s “go ing t o mak e any be ef s, or y ou know , f

i nd m y wi f e or an y thi ng l i ke th at.” On the morni ng of Ma rch 9, h e s aw Ow ne y wal ki ng to the store ashe wa s w al ki ng out of the poli ce station. They

had a conv

ersation an

d she i nvi ted him over. When

he arri ved on March 9, sh ortly be f ore 11 p.m., he

hon ked h i s horn an d f l ash ed h i s f l ash l i ght i nto he r be droom w

i ndow
. She cam e to t he door and they

went i nsi de. He was carry

in g hi s off -duty weapon, a sn

ub-nosed .38-cali ber revol ver, whi ch h e wore in a

hols ter o n hi s bel t. He was not wearing an ankl e hol ster
an d den i ed own i n g a n an kl e h ol ste r. H e a l so b rough t h i s n i gh tsti ck , w h i ch sh e h ad aske d h i m to bring. The y went into her bedr oo m, and he se cur ed t he do or wit h t he nail in the d oo r jam as s he had s how n him on t heir p re viou s enc ou nt er . D efenda nt t oo k o ff his clo t hes. Owne y was w ear ing a b lac k r o be
. T he y eng ag ed in fo r ep lay. T he n, as Ow ne y pe r fo rmed o r al s ex o n him, she t o o k h is ni ghtstick an

d rubbed i t o n he r geni tals. He den

ie d penetrating h

er with the n

igh tstick. They

had vagi nal in tercour se and def

endan t wor e a condom, wh

ic h Own ey provided to hi

m. After they were fi ni shed, def

endan t placed the condom

and som e paper towels i

n a garba ge bag that Owney
wa s h ol di ng . He l ef t the con dom i n h er a pa rtm en t be ca us e h e f el t i t woul d b e s af e to do so, having sp ok en wit h her ove r t he pa st t hre e we eks . H e go t dr esse d and left fo r w or k at t he st at io n, wh ich wa s a fe w mi nu t es aw ay. He a rr ived at wo rk at abo ut midnight. His shift w as fro m mi dnight t o 8 :3 0 a. m. He went to hi s l ocker, put on

hi s v es t, sh i rt, s we ater an

d retri eved

hi s d uty be l t. His S m i th a nd W es son1-08-0323

19

.4 5- ca liber fire ar m wa s o n his d ut y belt . H e t hen we nt t o t he w at ch c o mmand er ’s o ffice a nd le ft the station at about 1:15 a.m. He never encountered Owney durin g hi s shi ft and di d not go back to her ap artm

en t at any tim e. Dur ing his shift, he had an o ngo ing t ext messag ing sess ion wit h seve ra l dispat cher s at t he Offic e o f E mer ge nc y Ma na ge men t an d C o mmun ica t io ns o n his po r t ab le d at a t er minal lo ca t ed in hi s squad car. He was s

hown the State’s exh

ibit 27 whi

ch was a dmi tt ed i nto evide nce wh ic h was t he po rt able da t a t er minal l og . T he log re vealed ong oing t ext messag es fro m defenda nt and t he dis patchers between

3:48 a.m. unti

l 4:50 a.m. He then recei ved a text m

essage at 5:28:52 stating,

“ he y , y ou f orgot m y Coke.” De f en da nt e xp l ai ne d that the m

es sa gewa s ref

err i ng to hi m not bringing a Co ca- Co la up t o t he disp at cher when he was t alking t o t hem ear lier at t he
comm uni cations cen

ter. He respo nded at 5:42:11 and sen t another at 5: 45:56 and agai n at 5: 47: 16. He ne xt re ceived a messa ge a t 5: 54: 57 fr om t he disp at cher s at t he co mmunicatio ns cen ter. He re

pli ed at 5: 55:18 . He re cei ve d an other m ess age a t 5:56:0 0 an

d repl i ed at 5: 56:20
. He then rece i ve d a m ess age a t 5:57:5 3 an

d repl i ed at 5: 58:34
. He r ece ived ano t her messag e at 6: 00: 45 a nd r eplied a t 6: 23: 09. He e xplained t hat dur ing that interval, he had l

eft the Of fi ce of Em ergency Managem

ent and Com

mun ic ations an

d stopped
on 79 th Street for coff

ee and a b agel . He stated t hat he used m oney that he had taken out of an ATM mac hine at abo ut 4 a. m. He sent his next messag e at 6: 23: 37 a nd ag ain at 6: 24: 48 a nd
ano t her at 6: 25: 37. He t hen r ece ived a mes sag e at 6: 25: 52 a nd r eplied a t 6: 26: 35. The next me ssages were rece iv

ed at 6:44:45 and at 6:45:48. According to defen dant, these two messages did n ot require a res

ponse beca

use they were from

hi s beat off

ic ers i ndicatin g that t hey

had1-08-0323

20

wr itt en a s t op sign t icket in the d oc k ar ea fo r him to re co rd in his l og . H e did no t send ou t any mes sa ge s d ur ing t ha t pe r io d o f t ime be ca us e t he dis pa t ch er s he wa s t alk ing t o ha d e nd ed t he ir shift. He t hen r ece ived a flur ry o f messag es be t wee n 7: 43: 10 a nd 7: 44: 49. He r esp ond ed t o t he
mes sa ge s a t 7: 45 :1 4. H e d

i d n ot co m pl ete h i s s h i f t b ec au se h e w as ca l l ed i n to th e l i eu ten an ts off i ce. He wasask ed to surre

nde r his we apon s. Ne i

ther of the w eapons we

re i n a n a nkl e hols ter. He ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t he wa s r eq uir ed t o ca rry a nig ht st ick wh ile o n d ut y and ha d it du r ing his sh i f t on Mar ch 10. Defend ant furt her t est ifi

ed t hat he neve r fo rc ed O wney t o d o a ny of t he se x act s he de sc r ibe d. He de nie d t ha t Ow ne y wa s e ve rin a ny o f his p o lice ve hic les an d d en ied t ha t she wa s in his pol i ce v ehi cle No. 818 1 on the m orni ng of Marc h 10 , 2004. On cr o ss - ex amina t io n, t he St at e e licit ed no ev ide nc e fr o m de fen da nt t ha t co nt r ad ict ed his versi on of the eve

nts of March

9 and 10. He ackn

owledged that his log sheet did n ot refl ect entries for every forty-f iv e m in utes durin g hi s shi ft. He i ndicated that he met wi

th off ic ers under his c o mmand de sp it e t he fac t t ha t ha d n o t yet finish ed co mple t ing his lo g. He ha d o nly p ar t ially fi ll ed out his l

og with en

tries f or 1:30 a.m, 1:50 a.m., 2:20 a.m., 3 a.m and 3:30 a.m . He ack now ledge d t hat he had an ea gle t at t oo on his s hou lder . H e wa s aw ar e o f the ru les and
re gulat ions t hat bind ever y police o ffi cer and a ckno wledg ed r ece iving tr aining on t hese ru les and regulations. He acknowledged that hi s wi fe worked at a hospi tal wi th Detective Bes

teda, but expl ai ned that hi s wife di

d not wor k there until

si x m onths af ter t he en counter with Owne

y. He
ne ve r m et a ny of Ow ne y ’s f am i l y . He ne ve r ga ve Ow ne y an y gif ts, b ut di d gi ve he r $5 f or ci garett es af

ter t hei r fi rst encounter. The Stat e presented no evi dence i n rebuttal. The pa

rties1-08-0323

21

presented t hei

r closin g arguments. Pri or to r ul i n g on th e ch arge s, th e tr

i al cou rt m ade th e f oll owi n g f i n di n gswi th regard to the wi

tness es: “Bef ore r uli ng i t is al so relevant to commen t o n two d efens e wi tnes ses , Detec tiv

e Be l l and Bes teda. * * * T he ir t es t imo ny is n o t be lieva ble o rev en r emo t ely
re aso nable. Any witnes s-c omp lainant w ho r equ est ed mo ney to end thei r com plai nt woul d be more than

l i kel y arrested i m medi atel y . If
an y re as o n e xist ed t o no t ch ar ge t his p er so n immed iat ely it wo uld be un r ea so na ble t ha t De t ec t ive Be st ed a w o uld no t pa ss t his informat ion o n t o o t her po lice officer s involved in the inves t igat ion, her par t ner or t he st at e’s a t t or ney. T his fact , t heir p ar t icipat ion in a
re enac t ment o f the alleged cr ime, t heir d emeano r w hile tes t ify ing and D et ect ive Best eda ’s wo rk ing re latio nship wit h t he de fendant
makes th ei r te sti mon y un b el i ev ab l e a n d i n cred i b l e a n d Ire j ect i t. * * * I ha ve co mpar ed t he manner in which bot h t he de fendant
an d M iss Ow ne y t es t ified an d c o nsid er ed bo t h o f t he ir t es t imo ny in li ght o f al l the ot her evidence in thi s case. T he defendant’s test im ony is unreasonable an

d not hi ng short o f perj ury. Mis s1-08-0323

22 Ow ne y’s t es t imo ny, co rr o bo r at ed by t he o t he rev ide nc e in t his t r ial, i s rea sona bl e an d be l i ev ab l e des

pi te m i nor i nc onsi sten cies.” The trial court in itially found def

endan t guil ty as ch arged on all c ounts of aggravated cri mi nal sexual assaul t based upon three separate acts of sex ual penetration, two co unts of aggrava ted kidn api ng an d fi ve counts of off

ic ia l m is conduct. He found def

endan t not guil ty of aggrav

ated cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t prem i sed on the di spl ay of a ni ghtstick. Thereaf ter, defendan

t file d a postt rial

motion, argui

ng inter alia reasonabl

e doubt and that the trial court had sh

if ted the burden of proof to t he def ense. In a

n ef fort to refute the trial
co ur t ’s finding t hat det ect ive Best eda was incred ible for failing t o r elat e t he br ibe at t empt t o a ny ot her po lice officer s, d efense co unse l was a llowed , w itho ut objec t ion, t o int ro duc e wha t he argued was new

ly dis covered evi

dence b y pres entin

g the testim

ony of Robert Kuzas, an attorney f or th e p ol i cemen ’s

as soc i ati on w ho wassu m mone d to the s tati

on on be ha l f of de f en da nt on March 10, 2004. Kuzas

testifi ed that he was i

n the i nterview room with def

endan t when De t ec t ive Be st ed a e nt er ed wit h he rpa r t ne ran d r ep o r t ed Ow ne y’s st at eme nt t ha t “fo r$5 , 00 0, t his whole thin

g could go aw ay.” Kuzas told her that t hey were not in

terest ed in

any thing al ong t hose lines, t hat it must be do cument ed, and t hat t hey sho uld t ell the w at ch co mmander . Ku zas and Besteda then

ex plai ne d the si tuati on to the w atch

com mander. In den y i n g th e m oti on f or a n ew trial, the c our

t ad dr es se d th

e te sti mon y of K uz as an d i ts i m pact on the c ourt’s ru

l i ng. “That t est imony, in my

mind, fits int o my evalua t ion o f the testim ony of both those detect iv

es. The conduct of that1-08-0323

23 in vestigation i s questiona

ble by the detectives assi

gned to this cas e, t he manner in which the y handled t he invest igat ion, Ms. Owne y, t he
r e- en ac t men t o f t he cr ime fo rwh ich t he r e is ph o t o gr ap hs o f t he ir partici – one of thei

r partici pation. The very f

act that o ne of them
wasengage d i

n c onversa

tions wi th som eone repre sen tin g Mr. Her man abo ut what wit nesse s we re or wer e no t saying, fo llowing dir ec t io ns f

r o m t his a t t o rne y, t he se ar e t hing s t ha t fit int o my eval uation of the beli

evabi li ty of these witnesses. So it’s clear t hat my judg ment a t t he t ime of t he finding ab out the c red

i bi l i ty taki ng i nto c ons i derati

on th e te sti mony of
ev ery one i n l i ght of wh at the e

vi den ce was, wa s the

correct one. An d so as to those i ssues, the m

otion f or new tria l i s deni ed.” Addi tional ly , after reconsiderin

g the evi dence to support the convi ctions f or aggravated
cr imi nal sexu al assa ult pr emised o n t he we apo n, t he co ur t fou nd r eas ona ble do ubt in the testi m ony of Owney

regar di ng th e locati on of

the w eapons dur

i ng th e cours e of

the a ssa ul t. Ac cordi ngl y , the c onv

i cti ons f or aggra va ted cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t prem i sed on the weap on we

re reduc ed to the l

ess er i nc l uded off en se of cri m i na l sex ual ass aul t (720 IL CS 5/1 2-13 (W

est 200 4)) and m erged with the a

ggravated crim

in al sexual assaul t counts premi sed on off

ic ia l m is conduct (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(4) (West 2004)). Addi tional ly , for the sam

e reason, the aggravated ki dnap i ng con vi cti ons pre m i se d on the we ap on were

red uc ed to the l es ser i nc l ude d of f ense of kidna pi ng ( 720 IL CS 5/1 0-1(a) (1), (a)(3 ) (We st 2004 )).1-08-0323

24

With r esp ect t o t he co nvictio ns for agg ra vat ed c riminal sexual as sau lt p re mised o n t he nig ht st ick an d t he fire ar m, t he co ur t fo un d t ha t sinc e d efe nd an t wa s o n d ut y at t he t ime a nd leg ally
arm ed, th e legi slature di

d not i nten d f or thes e agg

ravated ci rcum stan ces to appl y to thi s ca se. Defend ant was ult imately sent ence d t o t hre e co nsec ut ive seven- year p riso n t er ms for t he off ense of aggravated cri

mi nal sexual assaul t premi sed on off

ic ia l m is conduct to be serv

ed
con se cu ti v el y to a f our -y ea r p ri son ter m f or ki dn ap i n g. A ddi ti on al l y , he w as se n ten ce d to
concurre nt 4- year sentences for the o ff ici al m isconduct cou nts, for a t ot al of 25 y ears’ i m pri sonm en t. II. AN AL YSIS De fen da nt co nt en ds t ha t t he ev ide nc e a t t r ial w as insu fficie nt t o su st ain an y o f his convi ctions b ased pri

ma ril y on a la ck of credi

ble testim ony a nd m is statements of ev

ide nce m ade by the t rial co ur t . Whe n co nsider ing a cha llenge t o t he su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e, t he r elevant que st ion o n app eal is “whet her , a fte r view ing t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he prosec uti on, anyra t ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he es sent ial elements of t he cr ime beyond
a rea sona bl e doubt.” (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Jacks on v. Vir

ginia , 443 U .S. 307, 3 19 (19 79); People v. De Filippo , 235 I ll . 2d 377, 384-85 ( 2009). This s tandard o f revi

ew applies,

“ reg ard l es s of whether th

e evi de nc e i s d i rect or ci rcu m sta nti al [ci tati on] , an d re ga rdl es s of whether the def

endan t receive s a ben

ch or a jury

trial [citation].” People v. Cooper, 194 Ill . 2d 419, 43 1 (200 0). This co ur t will not re t ry a d efenda nt when c ons ider ing a cha llenge t o t he su ffi ciency o f the
evi den ce. People v. Wheeler

, 22 6 I ll. 2 d 9 2, 11 4 ( 20 07 )
. Ra t he r , it is o ur du t y t o ca r efu lly1-08-0323

25

examine t he evide nce w hile bearing in mind t hat t he t rier of fac t is in the be st po sitio n t o ju dge t he credibil ity of wi tnesses, an

d due consideration m

ust be gi ven to the fact t hat the fac

t fi nder saw
and he ard the wi

tnes ses . People v. Cunningham , 21 2 Ill. 2d 274 , 28 0 (2 004 ); People v. Smith , 185 Il l . 2d 532 , 541 (1 999). However, the fact that a judge accepted the trut h of certai n testim ony does n

ot guarantee i ts reas onab l eness . Smith , 18 5 Ill. 2d at 545 ; People v. Schott, 145 Il

l . 2d 188 , 206-0 7 (199 1). As o ur su pr eme co ur t ha s s t at ed , “[ r ] ea so na ble pe o pl e ma y o n o cc as io n a ct un r ea so na bly” ( Cunningham , 2 12 I ll. 2d a t 280 ) a nd, t hus, altho ugh “a fact finder’s dec ision t o a cce pt t est imony is entitled to deference, i

t is n ei ther conclus iv

e nor bi ndi ng” ( Wheeler, 2 26 I ll. 2d a t 115 ). “[A]
r ev iew ing co ur t may find , aft er co nsid er ing t he wh o le r ec o r d, t ha t flaw s in t he t es t imo ny mad e it im possible for any fact f in der reasonabl

y to accept any

part o f i t.” Cunningham , 212 Ill . 2d at 283. Accordin

gly , we wil l rev erse a convi

ction where the evi

dence is so unreasonab le , i m proba bl e, or un sati sf

actory as to j ustif

y a rea sona bl e doubt of de f

endan t’s gu i l t. Smith , 18 5 I ll. 2d at 54 2. Applying t hese pr inciples t o t he pr ese nt cas e, we e xamine the re aso nableness of t he
ev ide nc e p r es en t ed by t he St at e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o it
. Aft er r ev iew ing t he wh o le
rec ord, wef

i nd tha t the ev i de nc e i s s o un sa

ti sf ac tory asto j us ti f

y a re as ona bl e doubt of def endan t’s gu i l t. At t he out set, the physical evidence pro duced at t rial was as consistent with defendant’s test im ony of a consensua l encounte r as it wa s with Owney’s test im ony of force. Thus, t he St ate ’s
ca se ag ain st de fen da nt r es t ed almo st en t ire ly o n t he cr ed ibilit y o f Ow ne y. H er t es t imo ny, t ak en in1-08-0323

26

t he light most favo ra ble to t he St at e, was esse nt ially t hat aft er smok ing 6- 8 r oc ks o f co caine, she
en co un t er ed de fe nd an t so met ime a ft er a 5 : 25 a. m ca ll t o he rdr ug de ale r . While o n d ut y, defendan t induced her in

to hi s caged squad car, and drove her t o her apar tment on t he premise th at h e n ee de d to s ee

h er i den ti f i ca ti on . H e th

en sex ual l y as sa ul ted h er oral l y , vag i n al l y an d w i th t he nig ht st ick , t hr ea t en ed t o kill he rif she t o ld a nyo ne , an d le ft t he co nd o m an d p ap er t o we ls in her bedroom garb age. Af ter cryi ng f or some period of ti

me , she ch

ecked her cl

ock to see whe

ther the li quor sto re was open, went to a liquor sto re to get a drink, b ut when i t was closed sh

e then
went to th

e p ol i cesta

ti on to rep ort th e a ss aul

t. There , pol

i cebe l i ttl ed he r, of f ere d her a br i be of $5,000 to ma

ke the case “go away,” pai d for her to purchase som e alcohol, and then

ma de her partici pate i n a reen actm en t of the ass aul t whe re her attorney

took photograph s. Defend ant spe cifically

maintains t hat t he t rial co ur t failed t o g ive due co nsider at ion t o t he fact that Owney

was a crack addi

ct, t hat she h

ad a m ot iv e to lie , that her test im

ony e ntirel y l acked
cr edibility, and co nt ra ry t o t he t rial co ur t ’s finding, w as r iddled w ith inco nsist encies a nd contrad i cti ons a nd was c omp l etel

y unc orroborated. Wi th respect to Owney ’s drug addiction, the evi dence rev eal ed that she was an

adm itted crack addi ct, im

peached wi

th her deposi

tion testim

ony tha t she did not do “rocks,” and was ad m i ttedl y “hi gh ” d uri ng the en ti re n i gh t of the en cou nte r. It h asl ong be en he l d that th

i s ty peof addi ction i s an i

mportant consi deration i

n pass in g on the credibil

ity of a wi tness “ ‘f or *** tes ti m ony of a n arc oti csaddict i s s

ub j ec t to su sp i ci

on d ueto the f ac t tha t ha bi tual us ers of narcotics b ecome n

ot orious li

ars’ ” ( People v. Strother, 53 Ill . 2d 95, 99 (1972) (quo ting People v. Boyd , 17 Ill . 2d

321 , 32 6 (1 959 ))), an

d suc h e vi denc e m ay ca st s eri ousdoub t on th e tru th of1-08-0323

27

t he ba lan ce o f t he irt es t imo ny ( Strother , 53 I ll. 2 d a t 99 )
. Alt ho ug h t his fa ct do es no t ne ce ss ar ily render her testim

ony un wort hy of bel ie f, i t do es bear upon h

er propensity

for decei t and her capaci ty to o bserve, retain an

d relate i nf ormation acc

urately . Therefore, the trier of f act was resp onsi bl e f or wei ghi ng th i s f act i n i ts cons i derati

on of the evi den ce. The trial court found, af

ter stat in g that it consi dered the evi dence i ncl udin g her drug use, that Ow ney ’stesti

mony wascredi

bl e, “ des pi te m i nor i nc onsi sten cies” and was “c orroborated.”

In scrutinizi ng Owney ’s testimony, we fi nd i t was fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions, most notabl

y rel ated to the tim

e lin e of eve nts rel ated to the encounter. The tim e lin e was material to Owne y ’scredi bi l i ty as i t rel ated to al

l of def endan t’s c onv i cti ons. When Ow ney initially

re po rt ed t he se xual as sau lt, she t old var iou s wit nesse s, includ ing po lice and med ical per so nnel, t hat t he enc ou nt er oc cur re d anywhe re fro m 3 a. m. t o 5 a. m. At t he t ime O wn ey init ially r ep o r t ed t he se xu al a ss au lt t o Offic er Ro bins o n, she t o ld R o bins o n it happen ed at about 3:30 a.m. Owney then i nf ormed the watch com

ma nder that it too k pla

ce som eti me b etw een

4 a n d 4 :3 0 a .m . To th

e two m ed i ca l pers on n el at th e h osp i tal, s h e rep orte d to them i ni tia l l y 4 a.m ., then

to the attendi

ng phy sician she reported

4:30 a .m . and later 5 a .m . To the IA D i nv es ti ga tor, s he rep orted the en cou nte r as be i ng at 3 or 3: 30 a .m . In

he r own pri or dep os itio n, w hen as ked whet her so mething happ ened t o he r a t 4 a. m, she r esp ond ed “yes, ” and then rel ay ed th e en coun ter wi th de f endan t. The i mportance of thes e i

nconsistencies i s evi

dent when

considerin

g the uncontradicted
ev i denc e that d

uri ng thi s enti re ti me p eri od de f en da nt wasab l e to veri

f y hi s w he rea bou ts f rom about 3 a.m. until

4:50 a.m. The watch

comm ander testif

ie d that he had l

unch with de fen

dant at1-08-0323

28

abo ut 3 a. m. o r 3 :3 0 a. m., and t hat defend ant left his o ffi ce a t abo ut 3: 30 a .m. The t ext s sent f rom d ef endan t’s portabl e data term

i na l acc ount f or hi s activ

i tie s b etween 3: 48 a.m. and 4:50 a.m . Defendan t co uld not have been

at Owney’s apartment during these earli er repo rted times

because defen dant was on the portable data termi nal sendi ng m essages. It was al so uncontradicted that be t we en 5: 28 an d 5 :5 8 a
. m. , de fen da nt ’s wh er ea bo ut s w er e a ga in a cc o un t ed fo rby t he po r t ab le data term i na l l ogs. The n, a t t rial, O wney cha nged her t ime li ne. She init ially

st at ed t hat at ar ou nd 5 a .m. , she
use d her dau ght er ’s ce ll phone t o c all her d ru g de aler, and t hen left t he ap ar t ment a nd
enco unt er ed d efenda nt . Fo r t he first t ime on cr os s-e xaminatio n, she chang ed he r t est imony again, stat ing that t he encount er t oo k place shor tly af ter she placed a t elephone call f ro m her daught er’s cell ph one to her drug dealer f

or more drugs, whic

h was recorded i

n the tel ephone records at 5:25
a. m. Fo r t he first t ime, she t est ifi ed t hat she left t he ap ar t ment s omet ime after 5: 25 a .m. and
en co un t er ed de fen da nt t he r ea ft er . T his t ime p er io d h ap pe ns t o co inc ide wit h t he 25
- minu t e g ap in t he t ra nsmission o f te xt messag es be t wee n 5: 58 a .m. and 6 :2 3 a. m., for which t her e is no i nde pen den t corroboration of

def endan t’s w hereab outs. Ho weve r, Owne y’s tr ial tes t imony, t hat she e nco unt er ed d efenda nt so metime aft er placing a call to her drug dealer at either around 5 or at 5:25 a.m., was then enti rely in consi stent with h

er dau ght er ’s t rial t est imony. He r d aug ht er t est ifi ed t hat she w as a wak ened by the c ell phone ringing i n h er m other’ s room

a f ew f eet aw ay at ab out 5 a.m ., that the

mother wa s n

ot there at 5 a .m ., that t he cel

l ph one was sh

ared by them, an d that t he daugh

ter t hen gave the cel

l ph one to her boyfriend . T his te st imony raises que st ions a s t o w het her Owne y was eve n home a t t hat t ime and1-08-0323

29

as t o ho w s he co uld ha ve mad e a ca ll t o he rde ale rat 5 a . m. o rev en 5: 25 a. m. t o su pp o r t he rt ime line of event s. C ont ra ry t o t he t rial co ur t ’s findings, t hese incons iste ncies ar e no t “minor” and shed s i gni f i can t doubt on Owney ’stesti

mony . Furtherm ore, co ntrary to the trial c ourt ’s f in din g that her testim

ony was corrobor ated, Ow n ey ’s testi mon y re ga rdi n g w h eth er de f en da n t wa s on du ty an d w h eth er sh e w as i n duce d to enter in to defen dant’s polic e car was not only uncorroborat ed, but was contradicted by ot her witne sses. In h

er previous sworn statement, Owney stated t hat she en

tered t he polic e car and sa t beh in d the driv er’s seat. However, at tr ia l, sh e chan ged her testim

ony, statin

g that she wal

ked around the car and sat on the rear passen ger’s si de. Despi te her testim

ony tha t she did not see a “boombox” o n the dr iver’s side, t he evidence technician reco vered a “boo mbox” on the d river’s si de rear seat when the c ar was sequestered that morni ng. Owney

al so describ ed the veh

ic le as be i ng c aged , but de f

endan t’s pol i ce v ehi cle had n

o cage . Her t estim

ony on these points was im por tant t o her cred ib il

ity gen erall y, but was also hi ghl y rel evan t t o t he proof nece ssary

to establ is h whether defen

dant was actin

g in hi s off ic ia l
ca paci ty at th e ti me of th e oc cu rre n ce . Th at proof wa s e ss en

ti al to hi s c on

v i cti on s f or b oth aggravated cri

mi nal sexual assaul t premi sed on off

ic ia l m is conduct (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(4) (West 2004)) and off

ic ia l m is conduct (720 ILCS 5/33-3(b) (West 2004)). Whether Owney entered the poli

ce veh ic le was al so relev

ant to est abl

is h the off ense of kidn api ng unde r an i ndu cem en t theory (720 IL CS 5/1 0-1(a) (3) (West 200 4)). Fu r t he rinc o nsis t en cie s in h er t es t imo ny inc lud e h er st at eme nt t ha t de fen da nt ha d a gu n in
an an kle hols ter, but no ankle h

olster was eve

r recovered. Al

though April Sh

ontea test if

ie d that1-08-0323

30

Owney was bab ys ittin g her chi ldren on the even

in g of March

9, Owney

testifi ed that she was bab ys ittin g her other daughter’s chi ldren and den ie d bab ys ittin g April Sh

ontea’s chi

ldren that
even in g. We recogni

ze that it i s f

or t he f act fi nder to judge how these f la ws i n he r testimony

aff ect the cre di bi l i ty of the wh ol e. H oweve

r, the f ac t f i nd er’ s j udg men t m us t be rea son ab l e i n l i gh t of the re cord. Cunningham , 21 2 Il l . 2d at 2 83. W

he n ta ken tog ether, the se

i nc ons i stenc i esare

not mi nor, as the trial

court found b

ut, rat her, seriously

underm in e Owney ’s testim

ony on m aterial points an d when taken toget her rai se unresol ved questions about the whole of her testim

ony. See People v. Yeargan , 2 29 I ll. App. 3d 2 19, 230 (1 992 ) ( t oo many facts and c ircu msta nces in the record u nde rm i ne d the com plai na nt’s credi bi l i ty). Based on the ev

ide nce presen

ted, and taken in

the li ght most fav

orable to the Stat e, we find t ha t aft er co nsid er ing t he wh o le r ec o r d, t he flaw s in O wn ey’ s t es t imo ny mad e it impo ss ible f or any f act f i nde r reas onab l

y to accept any

part of i t. Cunningham , 212 Ill . 2d at 283. S ee Smith , 18 5 Ill. 2d at 545 (no rea sona ble perso n cou ld fi nd t he witnes s’ t est im

ony cre dible); People v. Schott, 14 5 I ll. 2 d a t 20 8- 09 ( co mpla ining wit ne ss , an ad mit t ed liar wit h a mo t ive t o fals ely
ac cu se th e def en da n t, w as so t h orough l y i m pe ach ed cou rt hel d h er testi mon y i n suf f i ci en t to co nvict); People v. Coulson , 13 I ll . 2d 2 90 (1 958) (co nvi ction r eversed w here co mplainant’s des cri pti on of the cri me was i ncredi bl e on i ts f ace ). Th e tri al cou rt’ s r ul i ng tha t Ow ne y ’s ac cou nt wascre di

bl e w asalso p rem

i se d i n p art u pon its f in din g that t he testim

ony of both Detectives B esteda and Bel l was not “bel

ie vab le or even re m otel y re as on ab l e. ” T h e tr

i al cou rt s tate d th

at th e p ri mar y pu rp ose of th ei r te sti mon y wa s to1-08-0323

31

im peach Own

ey and, i f b elie

ved, would h

ave off ered strong im

peachm ent. Besteda denied atte m pti n g to b ri b e O wn ey , a n d te sti f i ed th at i t wa s Own

ey wh o so ug h t $5 ,00 0 f rom de f en da n t to

“ make th e c as e g o away.”Th

i s te sti mon y wa s of f ered as ev i den ce of Ow n ey ’s l ack of cred i b i l i ty and m ot iv e to lie about the rape for drug money to support her addiction. The trial court rejected both Bell and Besteda’s test im

ony, reasoning i

n part, as foll

ows: “Any witnes s-c omp lainant w ho r equ est ed mo ney to end thei r com plai nt woul d be more than

l i kel y arrested i m medi atel y . If
an y re as o n e xist ed t o no t ch ar ge t his p er so n immed iat ely it wo uld be un r ea so na ble t ha t De t ec t ive Be st ed a w o uld no t pa ss t his informat ion o n t o o t her po lice officer s involved in the inves t igat ion, her par t ner or t he st at e’s a t t or ney. T his fact , t heir p ar t icipat ion in a
re enac t ment o f the alleged cr ime, t heir d emeano r w hile tes t ify ing and D et ect ive Best eda ’s wo rk ing re latio nship wit h t he de fendant
makes thei r testi mony unb el i ev ab l e an d i ncredi bl e an d I rej ect i

t.” Al thou gh we giv

e great deference to t he trial court’s assessmen t o f the detect iv

es’ dem ean or ( Cunningham , 21 2 I ll. 2 d a t 28 0) , an d t he r e w as so me e vid en ce t o su pp o r t a p o ss ible bias wit h re spe ct t o B est eda ’s r elat ionship t o d efenda nt , t he t rial co ur t ’s finding re gar ding t he det ect ives’ cr edibility was p re mised, in p ar t , u po n an impro per and u nre aso nable infere nce. The t rial co ur t ’s r eas oning , t hat had O wney indee d o ffered t o “mak e t he ca se g o a way for $5, 000 ” she
wo uld have “mor e t han likely” been a rr est ed immediat ely and re po rt ed, is not gr ou nded in the evidenc e but , r at her , o n t he t rial co ur t ’s o wn pe rc ept ion o f what was re quir ed u nder t he1-08-0323

32

cir cu mst an ce s. T his c o nc lus io n is me r e s pe cu lat io n. Alt ho ug h t he r ev iew ing co ur t mus t allo w a ll
reason ab l e i nf ere nc esf rom the rec ord i n f av or of the pros ecution, a re

vi ew i ng cou rt m ay not al l ow un reas onab l e or spe cul

ati ve i nf eren ces . Cunningham , 212 Ill . 2d at 280. Fur t her mor e, t he t rial co ur t missta t ed t he fact s. C ont ra ry t o t he t rial co ur t ’s finding, t he
evi den ce reve aled that Detectiv

e Be steda i nde ed docu

men ted the attem pted b ri be i n h er rep ort
an d i nf orm ed he r s upe rvi sor of the con ve rs ati on. A s th e tri al cou rt noted , Be ste da ’s

tes ti mony on this point, i f b elie

ved, would h

ave sev erely underm in ed Owney ’s credi

bi li ty an d establ is hed a strong m otive to fa

l sel y accuse def endan t. W e f urth er rec ogn izetha t a tri er of f ac t i s n ot req ui red to ac ce pt a ny pos si bl e e xp l an ati on com pati bl e wi th i nn ocence a nd e l ev ate i

t to t he status of reas onab l e doub

t. People v. SiguenzaBrito , 2 35 I ll. 2d 2 13, 229 (2 009 ). Ho weve r, t he t rial co ur t ’s finding t hat defend ant ’s t est imony was “n ot hi ng sh ort of perj ury” was wi

thout expl

anati on and unsupported by the record. Our review of the record reveal s that, although contradicted b y Owney , defen dant’s testim

ony was ot herwi se i

nternal ly consi stent, unim

peached an

d unrebutted after expl

ai ni ng a consen

sual encounter at about 11 p. m. on March 9 and ex pla in in g hi s whereab out s on the m ornin g of March 10. III. CONCLUSION As our suprem

e court has recounted, “[t] he adage that ‘one b ad appl e spoils the lot ’ does
som eti mes de scri b e th e rel ati on b etw een sp ec i f i c f l aw s i n a wi tn es s’ testi

mon y an d th e cre di b i l i ty of the whole.” Cunningham , 21 2 I ll. 2 d a t 28 5. Aft er ca r efu lly co nsid er ing t he wh o le r ec o r d, t his i s s uch a c as e w h ere th e f l aw s i n th e te sti mon y made i t i m pos si b l e f or a n y f act f i n der re as on ab l

y to1-08-0323

33

accept any part o f i

t. The rec or d do es not suppo rt the t rier o f f act ’s fi nding that Ow ney’s test im ony was cred ibl

e and co rro bora ted , “despite mi nor inconsistencies,” o r t hat de fendant’s testim ony was “n

ot hi ng sh ort of perj ury.” A

dditionally

, the trier of f

act relied on an i

mproper in feren ce and m is stated t he ev

ide nce. Ac cordingl

y, b ased on thi s record, it is our consi dered judg ment t hat defend ant was not pr ove d gu ilty beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt . Ac co rd ingly, the j udgm en t of the ci rcui t court is reverse d. Judgm ent reversed.