Docket No . 98942.



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

THE PEOP LE OF T HE ST ATE OF I LLI NOI S, Appe llee, v.

RI CA RD O H ARR IS, A pp el l an t.
Opinion filed February 1, 2007.

JUSTICE BURKE del

iv ered the judgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Chi ef Justice Thomas and Justices F

reema n, Fi tzgerald, Ki

lb ride, Gar man, a nd Kar meier co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

Fo llowing a j ur y tr ial in the cir cuit co ur t of Co ok Co unt y, t he de f en da n t, Ricardo Harris, was

conv i cted of the f i rst deg ree m urders of Di pak Patel an

d Am bal al Patel, the attempted fi

rst degree murder and aggravated battery of C hri stin a Chisni ck, and the aggrava

ted ba ttery of Helen Chisni ck. At a separate sentenci

ng he arin g, t he sa me j ury found def

endan t eli gible for the dea

t h pena lty for having
m urd er ed two o r more i

ndi vi dual s. The j ury al

so concluded, af

ter weighing t he fact or s in agg ra vat ion and m i ti ga ti on , that dea

th was t he appr opri ate

se n ten ce . D ef en da n t wa s sent ence d t o d eat h for t he
m urders of Dipak and Amala l Pa t el a nd t o co nse cu t ive 30

- yea r s t er ms of impriso nment for t he at t empt ed mur der of Chr istina C hisnick and t he aggra va ted b attery

of Hel en Ch is nick. Defen

dant’s death se

ntence hasbeen stayed pen

din g direct revi

ew by this court . Ill . Const. 1970,-2- ar t. VI, §4(b); 134 Ill . 2dRs. 603, 609(a). For t he reasons that follow, we aff irm defendan t’s convictions and sen

tences.

Bac kgr ou nd Evidence at tr ia l e stablis hed the f oll owing. On

May 13, 1999, at
a pp r o ximat ely

7:25 p.m., the Oak Lawn police departmen

t receive d
a repo rt of a sho ot ing at t he E xt ra Value liquo r st or e o n C ic er o Avenue i n Oa k L aw n , Il l i n oi s. A disp atch wa s s en t out an d p o li ce o f f i cers proceeded to the store. Once i nsi de, the off

ic ers di scover e d that f our pers on s h

ad b een sh ot. Di pak Pa tel , the store ma

nager, was fou nd lyi ng o n t he floo r, bl eeding and struggli ng to get up. He had been sho t onc e in the ba ck

. Ch r ist ina Ch isnic k, a c us t o mer in the store at the tim e of th e sh ootin g, was f ound l y i ng on her ba ck i n a store ai sl e. She ha

d been s hot t wice, onc e in the abdo men and o nce in t he gr oin. Chri stin

a’s sister, Helen

Chisni ck, was kneel

in g over Chri stin

a, app lyi ng press ure t o he r w ou nds. Helen ha d bee n sho t onc e in the abdo men. In the rear of the store, t he off ic ers di scovered another
em ploy ee, Am bal al Pate l , se ate d on

the f l ooran d le an ing ag ain st so me sh el v es . H e h ad b een sh ot once i n th e ch est. T he po lice o ffice r s c alle d fo rmed ica l he lp and s ecu re d t he store. Paramedi cs arriv ed and t ra nspo rt ed t he fo ur victims o f the shootings to the hospital. Bot h Di

pak and Am

balal di ed from their wounds. Chri stin a and Hel en surv iv ed. At trial, Chri stina test ifi ed a bo ut the eve nts tha t took pl ac e on May 13, 1 999 . C hrist ina st at ed t hat she a nd her sist er dr ove t o t he Extra Val ue l i quor store at a

pproxi matel y 7:15 p .m . Whe n they arriv ed, no ot her cars were i

n the store’s parki

ng l ot . As the two si stersen tered t he st or e, Dipak Pat el was st anding be hind t he fro nt
coun ter, tal ki n g w i th A m ba l al Pate l . No oth

er c us tomers orem ploy ees were pres en t. The s i stersl ooked at various i tem s, the n m oved toward t he back of t he store, wh

ere there w as a

n a i sle of ref ri gerate d cool ers contain in g cases of beer. Am bal al approached

the women

and spoke wi th t hem for a few mo ments . C hrist ina the n op ened t he do or t o o ne of the coolers, rem

oved a case of

beer, and turned. Christ ina t est ifi ed t hat , a s she t ur ned, she sa w an Afr icanAm erica n man , wh om she ide ntif ie d in court as def

endan t, and Dipak walking to ward the back of the store at the end of the c ooler ais le

.-3- Defend ant wa s a

b out a foo t and a half behind Dipak and was hold ing
a gun. Christ ina

sta ted th at, as t he t wo men wer e wa lking, d efenda nt sh ot Dipa k in the back. Def

endan t t hen turned and f

ired o nce in the di recti on o f Amba lal, who was standi ng be hi nd Ch risti na. Defend ant then sh ot Ch ri sti n a twice. Ch

rist ina te st ifi

ed t hat t he fo rc e o f the
sec ond shot spun her around. A s she turned, she saw A

m ba lal, ha l f wa y i nto a shelf, his chest

co ve r ed wit h blo o d. Ch r ist ina t he n fe ll to the ground. Hel en Chisni ck o ff

ered testim

ony s im il ar to Chri stin

a’s. Hel en stated that, at the tim

e of the sh oot in gs, she was

standi ng i n the cooler ai sl e, facing Chr istina. As Chr istina r emove d t he be er f rom th e cool er, Hel en he ard a gunsh

ot , and i mm edi ately saw that Am

bal al had b een sh ot. Helen lo ok ed a t Christ ina an d w atc he d a s she

wa s shot an d fe ll to the f l oor. H el en the n tu rned to l ook i n th e di recti on f rom which t he sh ots were fi

red and saw a

man , wh o m she i

dentif ie d in court as d ef en da n t, standi ng ab out fi

ve f eet from h

er. Helen al so saw Dipa

k lyi ng on the fl oor and kn

ew that he h

ad been shot. Helen

stated t hat she looked def

enda nt “r ight in the fa ce, ” loo ked at him “up and down ,” and s aw

th at he was hol

din g a gun i n hi s righ t hand. Helen testifi ed that she looked at d ef

en da nt f orappro xi

mately fi ve seconds. Defend ant then

shot her. He l en

testi f i ed that she thre

w h er p urse across t he ais le and f

ell to the fl

oor , where she pretended to be dead. Hel en stated t hat, after a fe

w sec ond s, she sa

w her sister’s l eg move

. Hel en wh

is pe re d t o C hrist ina to st op moving bec aus e t he gunm an mi gh t st ill be in the st or e. A few mor e se co nds p asse d, and Hel en and C hrist ina bot h st oo d up . H elen st at ed t hat she wa lk ed toward t he fro nt of t he st or e, saw a you ng blo nd wo man at t he fro nt
coun ter, and told he

rt o p hone t he police. Hel en then returned to her si ster. Christ ina said she was gr ow ingwea k and l ay down on the f l oor. Hel en knel t o ver Ch ri sti na , appl i ed pre ssu re to her wounds, an

d began prayi ng. Police and param

edi cs arriv

ed and b ot h wome

n were taken t o t he ho sp it al. Both Christ ina and H elen t est ifi

ed t hat t hey did no t see defend ant enter or leave t he st or e. The sist er s ag re ed t hat defend ant shot Dipak f i rs t, followed b

y A mb al al , then Christin

a and, f in ally , He l en . B oth
women also testified that defendan t never spok e during the shoot in gs. As Ch ri sti na stated, “ He j ust ca me i n a nd s hot us.”-4- Oak Lawn Pol

ic e Detective Mic

hael Murray b

rief ly in terviewe d Hel en in the hospi tal em ergency room dur i ng the even i ng of May 13, 1999. Bot h Hel

en an d Murray testi fi

ed that Helen w as be ingtreat ed f orher i nj uries at the time , that medica l p er so nnel wer e moving
ar ou nd her , a nd t hat Mu rr ay st o o d o ff to one side. Helen t est ifi

ed s he tol d Murray that t he person wh

o shot herwas a bl

ack m al e, 5 feet 11 in ches tall , that he wei ghed 17 0 po unds , a nd t hat he wa s we ar ing bl ack pants, bl ack shoes, and a bla

ck, l ong-s l eev

ed shi rt or jacket. In his testim ony, Murray

recalle d Hel en descri

bi ng the off ender as5 feet 7 in ch es t all. Murray in terviewe d Hel en i

n the h ospital at greater lengt h t he next day an d, wi th H el en ’s as sista nc e, prep are d a

com pos i te s ke tch of t he gunman. Bo t h Helen a nd Mu rr ay agr eed t hat , d ur ing t his seco nd in terview on May 14, 1999, Helen

descri bed the gun

ma n as5 feet 11 inches, 170 po unds , a nd bet wee n t he age s o f 35 a nd 40 . At t he t ime of t r ial, ap pr o ximat ely

fi ve y ears af ter the murders, defendant was 6 feet 0 in ches tall and weigh

ed 185 po unds. On May 15, 1999, Mu rr ay a nd a s ec o nd de t ec t ive visit ed He len in her home and sh owed her a photo arr ay

contain in g si x pi ct ures, including on e of

defen dant. Helen

selected defen

dant’s ph ot ograph because , as she st at ed, “tha t is who sho t me.” On cr os s-e xaminatio n, He le n ac kn o wle dg ed t ha t she t o ld t he o ffice r s s he wa s 7 0% ce r t ain about her select ion. Ho weve r, she e xplained he r a nswe r by st at ing that she wanted t o se e t he ma n in t he ph o t o gr ap h in p er so n a nd t ha t “it wasn’t a pi

cture that sh

ot me. It was a real

person that shot me.” After Hel en sel ected d ef endan t’s ph otograph f

rom th e ph oto arr ay, sh e si gn ed an d date d i t. On August 7, 1999, Helen

viewed a li neup at the Oak Lawn

police s t at ion. Hel en ackn

owledged that, by

this tim e, she h ad twi ce see n tel ev i si on pr og ra ms abo ut t he sho ot ing at t he li quor sto re. She stated, howe ver, tha t the tel ev i si on pr o gr ams di

d n ot i nf l uenc e h er v i ew i ng of t he lineup. At the li

neup, t he po lice officer s t old Helen t hat aft er she looked at eac h per so n she c ou ld ask t o s ee a nyone a se co nd t ime. The
me n stood i n a l i ne an d a ppr oac he d the v

i ew i ng wi nd ow ind ivid ua lly. Hel en testifi ed that, afterviewing all the men, she knew t hat t he fi rst pe rs on in the li neup, defend ant , w as t he o ne who had s hot her . S he stated that sh

e asked to hav e def

endan t step f orward a second time so that he wo uld k now she ha d ident ifie d hi m. The n, accordin

g to an-5- off ic er pr ese nt dur ing t he lineup, Helen s aid, “I thi nk i t’s n um ber one.” Howev er, Helen t est ifi

ed t hat she told th

e pol i ce of f i cers “i t is n umb er one.” She also to ld the jury that she “pi cked him beca use t hat ’s who sh ot me” and t hat she w as “p os itive” d efenda nt wa s th e m an wh o sh ot her. Christ ina

als o t es t if

i ed r ega rd ing inte rview s she ha d wit h t he police. Chri stin

a stated t hat

she br iefly

sp o ke t o a u nifo rmed o ffice rin t he eme r ge nc y r oo m on Ma y 13 , 19 99 , be fo r e u nd er go ing su r ge ry. Christ ina testifi ed that she told the of

fi cer that the gunma

n was 5 feet 9 inches and in his m

id-t hirt ies. S he al so stat ed that he wore a bl ack sh i rt, bl ack pants, and b la

ck sh oes, and ha d sho rt black ha ir in a natural, af ro hairsty le

. On Ma y 23 , 19 99 , D ete cti

v e M ur ra y v i si te d Christ ina while she
was stil l recove rin g in the hospi tal. Murray

sho wed Christ ina

an array of six photo gr ap hs, inc lud ing pic t ur es o f bo t h d efe nd an t an d h is brothe r. Chris tina testifi ed that , because of her

medical co ndit ion, she had not see n any

ot her pictures or media coverage related t o t he case be f ore she was sho wn t he pho t o a rr ay. Chr istina selected d efendant’s pho t og ra ph. I n his te st imony, De t ect ive Mur ra y reca lled Christ ina t elling him dur ing t he int er vie w o n Ma y 23 t ha t she did not ge t a g ood l ook at the gunm

an’s face but that she recogni

zed the sh ap e of defendant’s he ad an

d hi s hai rsty l e. However, i

n h er t es t imo ny, Christ ina denied saying t hat she d id no t get a go od loo k at t he gunman’sface. Chri stiana agreed that sh e had c omment ed o n t he shape o f t he gunm

an’s head an

d hai rstyle, but stat ed that she al so recogniz ed

defendan t’s “bi g ro und eyes ,” “close ea

rs ” a nd com plex i on when s he se lect ed his p hot og ra ph. Li ke H el en , Chri stin

a vi ewed a l in eup at the Oak Lawn polic e sta ti on on A ug us t 7, 19 99 . Pr

i or to the li

neup , she t wice s aw t he photogra phof de f en da nt s he ha d s el ec ted f rom the photo array

on tel ev i si on programs. Durin

g the li neup, Chri stin

a i dentif ie d defend ant
as th e m an wh o sh ot h er . Al so l

i ke He l en, C h

ri sti n a state d th

at sh e was ce r t ain of he r ide nt ifi

cat ion o f defend ant as t he gu nman. Christ ina tol d the j ury that defenda

nt was standi

ng di rectly in front of her wh

en he b egan sh

oot in g and that the sight of hi m was “b randed i n [her]
mem ory .” Dr. Ot t o M acLin, anex

peri men tal psy chologi st, off ered e xpe rt
o pin io n concerning the reli

abili ty of ey ewitness i dentif ications. Ma cLi

n-6- dis cussed a phe nomeno n k

now n a s t he “w ea po ns f

o cu s e ffec t , ” in whi ch a v i cti m may f ocu s h i s a tten ti on on the we ap on us ed t o co mmit t he crim e rather than the o ff

ender’ s f ace . Ac cordi

ng to Ma cLi n, a body of academ

ic li terat ure in

dic ates that wh en a w ea po n is in volv ed in a crim e there “is a

detrim ent or dim

in is hed capaci ty to reco gni

ze” t he off ender. MacLi

n ackn owledged , h owev er , that i t i s d i f f i cul t to conf i rm this eff ect thro ugh ex

perim entat io nbeca use of t he i m pos si b i l i ty o f c r ea t ing a la bo r at o ry exp erim ent whi ch m irrors an
ac tualcrim

e i nvol vi ng a weapon. MacL

in al so acknowledge d that
so me peo ple do make a ccu ra t e ident ifi cat ions d esp ite t he presence of
a we apo n. Ma cL in al so describ ed

t he “c r o ss
- r ac e e ffec t , ” a ph en o men o n in whi ch a pe rso n may

have di ff ic ulty ide ntif yi ng a person of

another
race. MacLi

n ackn owledged, however, that so me cross-racial ide ntif ic ations are acc

urate. Jef f re y Pari se, a fi

rearms expert, t estifi

ed for t he Stat e. Parise stated t hat he exa mined an unfire d ca rt ridg e, a sp ent bullet , a nd five
car t ridg e ca sings r eco ver ed fr om t he f l oor of the Ex tra V al uel i quor store. He al so exam

in ed a bul le t t hat had b een rem

oved from

Dipa k dur inghi s a utops y , an d a bu l l et that had

be en rem ove d f rom Christ ina dur ingsu r ge ry. Parise

testifi ed that the th

ree b ull ets he exam

i ne d were .40-ca l i ber, j acketed , Hy

dr ash ock h oll ow- poi

n t b ul l ets , a disti n cti ve typeof am

mun ition that is m

anuf actured o nl

y b y the Federal Co mp an y. He

also s tate d th a t t he bull

et r eco vered fro m Am

balal ’s body and the b

ull et found on the l

iquo r stor e f

l oor we re f i red f rom “one gun to t he ex

cl us i on of all others.” Pari se f

urther test if

ie d that t he car t ridg e ca ses r eco ver ed fr om t he st or e co uld have been f ired f rom t he sam e gun. In addi

tion, each c artridge had an elli ptical i m pre ss i on l ef t on i t f rom t he firing pin. Ac co rd ing t o P ar ise, o nly the Glock Compan y m anuf actures a .40-cali

ber han dgun that le aves

t he typeof i mpres si on found on the c a rt ridg e ca ses r eco ver ed fr om t he li quor sto re. Pau l i ne Ze l ko, a deputy

sher iff fro m Genes ee C ou nt y, Michigan, testifi ed on be half of t he Stat e. Zel ko stat ed that defen

dant was i n he r custody on May

7, 1999, six

day s bef ore t he sh oot in g. On that date, defend ant to ok Zelko’s f

irearm and esca ped. Zel ko’s fi rearm wa s a .40-ca l i ber, semiaut omat ic Gloc k hand gun. The gun wa s l oaded wi th-7- 13 rounds of .40-calib er, jacketed, Fede ra l Hydra sho ck ho llow- po int ammunitio n. Fra nk Sarell i a ls o t estif ie d for the State. In May

1999, Sa r elli was livi ng in the Alo ha Mo t el on C icero Avenue , five bl ocks fro m the Extra Va lue liq uor sto re. Sar elli stat ed t hat he met defend ant at t he Aloha Mot el

on Ma y 11 . O n Ma y 12 , Sa re l l i sol d cra ck coc ai n e to de f en da n t. Defe n dant t hen t old Sar elli that he wa nt ed t o s ell a gun. Acco rd ingt o S ar elli, defend ant sho wed h i m a b l ack, .4 0-cal

i ber, Glock han dgun an d said he wan

ted $200 for i

t. Sarelli calle d various dr ug de ale r s bu t wa s u na ble t o se ll t he gu n fo rhim. Sa r elli testifi

ed that, o n Thursday

, May 13, 199 9, defend ant ca me to hi s room at approxim

ately 11 a.m, aski

ng f or more cocaine

. At that t ime, de fen da nt t o ld S ar elli t ha t his brothe r and cous i

n w ereco ming i n to t ow n fro m Michigan, t hat t hey might wa nt t he gu n, a nd t hat he
was no lo ng er int er es t ed in selling it. The shootings at the Extra Val ue l i quor store occurred

dur i ng the even i ng of May 13. Sarell i s tated t hat he di d not see defen

dant on May

14. On May 15 , 1 999 , S ar elli phoned t he Oa k La wn po lice dep ar t ment and to ld them

he h ad i nf ormation ab out the shootings. Sarel li then went t o t he po lice st at io n a nd t o ld them a bout defenda

nt and the gun he had be en sho wn. Base d o n t his inf o r mat io n, an

d i nf orm ati on obtaine d at t he Aloha Mot e l, the Oak L awn polic e departmen t was ab le to obtain a

picture o f def

endan t from authorities i

n Mi chi gan

. Thi s pi ctu rewa s s ub se qu en tl y pl ac ed i n th e p h oto a

rra y s s h own to Hel en an d Chri stin a Chisni ck. Dur inghi s cross-exam

in ation, Sarelli

acknowledged that he was
a dr ug an d a lco ho l abus er with prior crimi nal convicti ons. He also acknowl edged

tha t he ex pe cte d to re ce i

ve a re wa rd of $2,50 0 if defend ant was convi

cted. Sarelli s

tated t hat t he off er of the award was
ma de fou r year s aft er t he mur der s, in 2 003 , by Oak Lawn police offi cers. A t th at t ime , S ar elli was in priso n in Danville, Illinois, and
was sch ed

ul ed to be t r an sfe rr ed t o St at ev ille pr iso n so t ha t he co uld t es t ify i n th e i ns tan t ca se . Sa rel l i di d n ot l i kecon d it io ns in St at ev ille and was angry

about the tr ansf

er. Sarell i told the Oa

k Lawn pol

ic e off i cers th at h e w oul d n ot co ope ra te and that

t he y we r e w as t ing t he ir tim e. At that po in

t, t he off ic ers m entione d the reward. On re dir ec t , S ar elli t es t ifi ed that he did no t kno w abo ut any rewa rd when he f irst phone d

the police on May

15, 1999. He stat ed-8- that h e c am

e f orw ard w i

th i n f orm ati on ab out def

en da n t because he knew Dipak and Ambalal, had been in t heir st or e many tim es, and was upsetb y th ei r d ea th s. Sa re l l i also t esti f

i ed th at th e S tate ’s At to rney had not offer ed him anything for his te st imony and t hat his te st imony
wa s n o t be ing gi ve n s o lely t o co llec t t he r ew ar d m o ne y. Dur ingth e red

i re ct ex am

i n ati on of Sa re l l i , the S tat e a ls o in tro duced a tape rec ordi

ng of the phone cal

l Sarel li ma de to t he Oak Lawn po lice on M ay 15, 199 9. In t hat re co rd ing, S ar elli to ld t he po lice “so meb o dy in–in t he ar ea o ve rt he r e, a b lac k g uy, t r ied t o se ll
me a 4 0 c alibe rse mia

ut o ma tic pi stol. It was a Glock. A Gl ock 40 calib er sem

ia uto ma tic pi stol, 13 shot cli

p.” As the State later argued to t he jury, t he t ape re co rd ing was significant in es t ablishing Sare ll i’s
cred i b i l i ty because bal li stics tests had not yet been

conductedon May 15 and, at t he t ime S ar elli c alle d, t he po lice did not yet know the m ake of the we ap on used i n the sh oot in gs. Thus, the tape recording sh owed that Sarell

i was the fi

rst person to report to the police that a Glock handg un had been u sed t o c ommit t he murders an d that t he gun

had a 13-shot cli

p. Fo llowing clo sin g a r gu men t s, t he jury r et ur ne d g ui lt y v erd i cts agains t de fe ndan

t for t he first deg re e mur der s o f Dipak Pat el and Am bal al Patel(720 ILCS 5/9–1(a)(1) (West 2004)); the att em pted fi rst deg re e mur der (7 20 I LCS 5/ 8–4 , 9 –1 ( West 200 4) ) a nd aggravated

ba ttery (720 IL CS 5/1 2–4.2( a )(1) (Wes t 200 4)) of Christ ina Chisni ck; an d the aggravated battery (72 0 ILC S 5/12–4.2(a)(1) ( West 2004)) of Hel en Ch is nick. At t he e ligibilit y pha se o f the de ath pen al ty h ea ri n g, t h e S tate in tro duced defendan

t’s bir th c erti

f i ca te a nd certi f i ed cop i esof
con vi cti on f or th e f i rs t d egr ee mur de r s o f Dip ak an d A mba lal P at el. T he j ury f oun d de f en da nt e l i gi bl e f or th e dea

th p en al ty f orha vin g m urd ered two or more in div idual s. 720 ILCS 5 /9–1(b)( 3) (West 2004)

. At t he ag gra

va ti on- m i ti ga ti on phase of the death penal

ty he arin g, t he Stat e i ntroduced furt her det ails reg ar ding de f en da nt’ s e sc ap e f

rom De pu ty Sh er iff Pauli ne Zel ko in Mi chi gan. The es cape occurred after Zel ko t ransported de f

en da n t f rom th e c oun ty j ai l to a docto r’s off

ic e in Flint , Mic hig an

. While Ze lko wa s r ep la cing defendan t’s shackles, defend ant pushed Z el

ko’s head i

nto his groin, l eaned over

her back, and grabbed the

deputy’s gun. Def endan t t urned the gun

on a doctor-9- and started t o flee. He then returned to Zelko, put t he gun to her hea

d and s aid, “Bitc h, g ive me the keys t o t he ca r. ” Zelk o g ave d efenda nt the k eys. De f endan t then f l ed wi th Zel ko’sgun and car. Pa t r icia Lazz io, a fo rmer Gene see Co unt y, Michigan, prosec utor, descri bed the charges that

were pending agai

nstde fen da nt at t he t ime he esc aped

f rom Z el ko. In se pa ra te cases, def

endan t was faci ng three
cou n ts o f ar me d r o bbe ry, a “fe lo ny fir ea rm” c o un t an d a “fe lo n in po sses sion” co unt . H e wa s also char ged wit h re sist ing and o bst ru ct ing
a pol i ce of f i cer. Lazzio stated that, because of hi s rec ord, the

State of Mi chi gan h ad r efu se d t o ple a b ar ga in

wit h d efe nd an t

. I n a dd it io n, all pend ingcharges aga

in st defen dant had b een

consoli dated and a trial da te had be en

set f or M a y 19, 199 9. Lazz io also t est ifi ed t hat t he Sta te of Mi chi gan wa s see king a life sent ence for defend ant on t he gr ou nd that he was an

habitu al offend er and t hat defend ant had b een i n f orm ed of th i s f act. La zz io st at ed t hat one of t he inc i dents f or which defen dant was facing charges was

the robber

y o f a c on v en i en ce sto rei n Fl i n t, Michigan, on O ct obe r 7 , 1 998 . I n t his incident , t he r obbe r e nt er ed t he store, re ache d ac ro ss t he cou nter and grabbed t he sto re clerk’s cl ot hes
ar ou nd his neck. He then

hel d a knife wi

th a si x- to seven-i

nch bl ade to t he cle rk’ s t hr o at an d d ema nd ed mo ne y. T he cle rk ide ntif ie d defend ant as t he r obbe r from a photo li neup an d defen dant was subse quentl

y ar re st ed. The ar med r obbe ry was also re co rd ed o n a vi deo survei

ll ance tape, whi

ch was pl

ay ed for the j ury dur ing t he
sen tenc i ng h eari ng i n the ca se a

t bar. La zz io sta

ted tha t de f en da nt wasalso f

ac i ng ch arg esf ora se co nd
ar med r o bbe ry t ha t o cc ur r ed in Flint , Mic hig an , in t he ea rly morning hours of October 14, 1998. In this i nci dent, the robber entered a
conven ie ncestore and pull

ed out a . 357 Magnum

from hi s wai stband. He poi n ted th e g un at a clerk ’s hea d, co cke d it , a nd said, “Give me t he chees e.” He then poi

nted t he gun a t a cu st omer and indica t ed t hat he
was rea dy to sh oot hi m , too. Th

e rob be r took t he mo ney fro m the sto re’s register and lef

t. Followi ng a c ha se on

f oot, police of

f i cers apprehen de d d efen

dant in a nearb y a rea. They al so recovered a loaded, lo ng
- ba rr el, .3 57 M agnu m that defend ant had tri ed to di sca rd dur ing t he cha se. Afte r d efenda nt was t ake n t o t he po lice st at ion, he adm i tted to poli

ce of f i cers t hat he ha d r o bbe d t he st o r e. T he n, wh ile in a hol din g area, defen

dant struck a poli ce o ff

ic e r in the head,-10- wrestled wi th him on t he gr ou nd, and t ried t o g ra b t he officer ’s gu n. W i th t he he lp o f ad dit io na l o ffice r s, de fen da nt wa s e ve nt ua lly subdued. Evide nc e of

ot her cri me s def endan t commi tt ed i n Mi chi gan was also intr od uce d. Defend ant was co nvicte d o f brea king and ent er ing i n to an occupied dwel

li ng i n 1986 and was

sen tenc ed to a prison ter

m of 5 to 15 years. In 1988, defe ndan t was seen i

n a stolen car and f le d when a p ol i ceof

f i cer ap proa ch ed the veh

ic le . Defen

dant was
su bse qu en t ly

con vi cte d of unl awful ly driv in g away an aut omo bile and recei ved a pr i son te rm of two t o fi ve y ears. In 1989, defe

ndan t was convi cted of attempted fel

ony rece iv

in g and conceal

in g of stolen pr o pe r t y. He received a sen tence of one t o t wo years’ i m pri son men t. Defend ant wa s incar cer at ed in Michiga n in Augus t of 1 989 and paroled in June of 1993. His pa

role wasrev oked, and h e was rein carcerated, in

October of 1994. He was released again i n August of 19 96, and his parole rev oked a second tim

e, in March of

1997. Defend ant wa s p ar o led a t hir d t ime i n F eb rua ry of 199 8. B y Ma rch of 1999, he had b een ch

arged with a

rmed robb ery an

d the other crim

es for whi ch h e was f aci ng trial on May 19, 1999. Ev idenc e was also intr od uce d at defend ant ’s se nt encing he ar ing
re gar ding an

arm ed robbe ry tha t occurred

at a con venie nce st o r e in Charl ot te, Nort h Carolin

a, on July

21, 199 9. In t his incident , t he robber reached over th e coun ter, grab be d the clerk an d th re ate n ed to sh oot and ki

ll hi m i f h e di d not o pen the cas

h regi ster dr awer . T he clerk opened the drawer

an d t he r o bbe rt o o k t he mo ne y. T his incident
was al so recorded o n a v

ide o surveill

ance tape thatwas played fo r t he sent encing jur y in

the case at bar. Af

ter the vi deotape was recovered by t he po lice , it wa s r ele as ed t o t he me di a and bro adc ast on a tel ev i si on program calle d “Cri

me Sto ppers.” Defe

ndan t was arrested by t he FBI in Charlo t t e o n Au gu st 4

. T he st o r e c ler k s ub se qu en t ly id en t ifie d d ef

en da nt as t he r o bbe rfr o m a p ho t o ar r ay. Dipa k Patel’s son, Chiray

u Pat el, concluded the Stat e’s case in ag gr av at io n by r ea di ng a v ict im imp ac t st at eme nt t o t he jury. No evi dence was

off ered by defen dant in mitigat ion. Defend ant
r efu se d t o at t en d h is sent encing heari ng, did not coo perate with trial counsel i n th e p repa

ra ti on of m i ti gat i n g ev i den ce , a

n d dec l i n ed to t es t ify on h is o wn b eha lf.-11- Fo llowing ar gument by

t he St at e and defens e, t he jury concl uded that de ath wa s th e a pp rop riate

sen tenc e f or the m urders of D ipak a nd Am bal al Pa t el. T he jud ge su bse qu en t ly sentence d

de f en da n t to de ath f o rt he firs t de gr ee mur de r s a nd impo se d c o nse cu t ive 30

- yea rt er ms for the rem

ai ni ng conv ictions. This appeal

fol lowed.

Ana lysis Defend ant rai se s 1 0 iss

ue s on appe al, re l ati

n g to b oth

hi s trial and sent encing. We ad dr ess t hese issues in tu rn.

Defense C

ounsel’s Use of the W

ord “Jail” Pri ort o t rial, t he St at e filed a mot ion in limine se ek ing t o ad mit evi dence t ha t de fen da nt ha d e sc ap ed fr o m cu st o dy in Mic hig an six da ys b ef oreth e sh ooti

n gsat t he E xtra Value

li quor sto re and ha

d taken Deput y Sherif

f Zel ko’s .40-cali

ber Gl ockhandg un. In it s ru ling
on thi s m otion , the c i

rcui t court stated t hat the evi

dence t en de d “ t o aid in the id ent ifi

cat ion o f the perpetrat or o f the s ubj ect crim

es in t ha t it sh ows th at th e D ef en da n t h ad ac ce ss to o r p o ss es sio n o f a

handg un, orthe .40 caliber G lock he’s a lleged t o ha ve st olen fr om t he Sheriff ’s De pu t y, wh

i ch i s s i m i l ar to t he ha ndg un used i n the l i quor store
cr imes.” T he circ uit co ur t co nduc t ed a balancing t est and concl uded t hat t he pr oba t ivev al

ue of th e ev i den ce

su b sta n ti al l y outw ei gh ed i ts pot entia l prejudi ci al eff ect. Accordingl

y, the court granted the S tat e’s motion to admi

t t he ev ide nce. At t he sa me t ime , ho weve r, t he circ uit co ur t also ru led t hat t he evi dence of defendan

t’s escape “must

not be com e the f ocal poi nt of t he tria l .” To that end, t he co ur t or der ed t hat t he St at e wo uld “be li mi ted to establ

is hi ng that the Defend ant was in the c ust od y of t he Sh er iff Deputy, overpowered the Deputy, and f le d from the De put y Sheriff ’s cus t od y with her gun. ” T he co ur t furt her or der ed t hat t he Sta te wo uld no t be a llow ed t o pr es ent de t ails o f t he esca p e f rom custody that were irrel

evan t t o t he i dentif ic ation i ssue, including “t he fact that t he def

endan t was a jai

l i nmate a t t he tim

e of thi s other off en se.” The reaf ter, dur ing t he co ur se o f defense co uns el’so pening st at ement to the j ury, cou ns el sta ted tha t “ a p ers on b

y the na me of Ri cardo Harris h

ad escaped f

rom a j ai l i

n Mi chi gan an d he h ad-12- escaped with a gun.” In the n

ext sentence , counsel

aga in stated , “Ri cardo Ha rris d i d e sc ap e f

rom a j ail i n M i chi gan .” La

ter, dur ing t he
cros s- exam

i na ti on of Deputy Sherif

f Zel ko, defense counse l e li

ci ted t est imony tha t defend ant was wea ring “jail-jump gr ee ns” at t he t ime of his es ca pe . The c ourt s

us tai ne d a n ob j ec ti on by the St ate t o t he use of t he wo r d “

jail- jump s” bu t did not i

nf orm th e j ury tha t the obj ec ti on was sustai

ned. Bef ore this court , defendant argues t hat defense cou ns el ’s us e of t he word “ j ai l ” d uri ng hi s op en i ng sta tem en t, an d the e l i ci tation of t he word “j ail -jum ps” from a wi tness, am ount t o ine ff

ective assistanceof
co un se l. De f

en da n t con ten dsth at def

ense couns el ’s errors revealed that d efendan

t “had at least allegedly

commi tt ed prior bad act s an d that he h ad been arrested as a res ul t.”A cc ordi n g to def

en da n t,
cou nsel’s er r o r s w er e p r eju di cia l an d r eq uir e r ev er sa l o f his convicti ons. Cla ims of ineffect iveas sista nc e of counsel are general

ly eval uated under t he t wo -p ar t t est set for t h in Strickland v. Washington , 46 6 U.S . 668 , 687 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693, 104 S . Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (adopt ed by thi s court in People v. A lbanese , 104 Ill . 2d504, 525-26 (1984 )). T o pr ev ail und

er Strickland, a defend ant mus t sho w t ha t his att or ney’s assi stance was b ot h def ic ie nt and prej ud ic i al . More prec ise ly, a de fendant must sho w t hat his at t or ney’s ass ista nc e wa s o bje ct ive ly

unreaso na

ble under preva

il in g professi onal norms, an d that there is a “ r ea so na ble probabi

li ty that, but for counsel ’s un professi onal
erro rs, t he r esu lt o f the pr oc eed ing wo uld have be en di f f eren t. A
r ea so na ble probabi

li ty i s a probabi

li ty suf fi ci ent to un de rmine confi dence i n the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 694, 80 L. Ed. 2d . a t 69 3, 69 8, 10 4 S . C t . a t 20 64 , 2 06 8. Th e fa ilur e t o sa t isfy ei ther pr ong of t he Strickland

t es t will pr eclud e a finding o f ineffective
ass i stan ce of coun sel

. People v. Shaw, 186 Il l . 2d 301 , 332 (1 998). In t his case , d efenda nt has n ot establ is hed prej udic e. As n o t ed , in it s rul i ng on th e m oti on in limine , t he circ uit co ur t held t hat t he Sta te
co uld in tro duce evi

dence that

defend ant es ca

pe d f rom the cu stod y of De pu ty Sher iff Zelko . D efenda nt do es no t co nt es t t hi s ruli ng. Thus, defendant’s co nt ent ion r ega rd ing pr ejudice is quit e nar ro w: he contends he was prejudic ed by the statements that he esc ap e d f rom custody i n j ai l rath er th an f rom the cu stod y of a de pu t y she r iff. T his is a de minimis dist inctio n. T he jury kne w t ha t de fen da nt wa s in-13- custody an d c o uld infe r , lo gic ally, t ha t he wa s be ing he ld in custody somewh ere. Further, on the three occasions when the word “ja

il ” was
me ntioned it was not st re ssed or emphas ized in anyway. Finally , a nd mostimpor t ant , t he t hre e ment ions of t he wo r d “

jail” o cc ur r ed wit hin t he co nt ext of a lengt hy tr ial in whi cht he jur y heard ext ensive ba llist ic s e vi

dence as well as the compel

li ng testim ony of two ey ewi tnesseswho r ep ea t ed ly and un eq uiv o ca lly ident ifi ed d efenda nt
as t he gu nman. Giv

en these f acts, we co nc lud e t he r e is no r ea so na ble pr ob ab i l i ty that, absent the app earan ce o f t he wo r d “ jail” an d “

jailj um ps,” the resul t o f def e n da n t’s trial wou l d h av e b een dif f eren t. Ac co r di ng ly, de fend ant ’s c laim o f ineffe ct ive a ss ist anc e o f c ounsel fai ls.
Defendant’s Flight to and Arrest in North Carolina and His Use of an Assumed Name Bef ore trial , the Stat e m

oved in limine to in

tro duce evi

dence that defen dant fl ed to Charlotte, Nort h Carolin a, followi ng the sh oot in gs at the Ex traVa lue liqu o rst o r e a nd t ha t , at t he t ime o f his arrest there in August of 1999, he posses sed identif ic ation be arin

g a fal se nam e. Dur ing t he hearing on t he St ate ’s moti on , the S tate argu ed th at b oth de f en da nt’ s f l i gh t an d h i s u se of an ass um ed n am e wer e re levant and ad miss ible be ca

us e they sh owe d de f en da nt’ s c ons ci

ous ne ss of gui l t f or the crim es comm itted in Il l i n oi s. The S tate

aske d th e c i rc ui t cou rt to

“ al l owthe Pe opl e to ma

ke [this ] ar

gum en t to the ul ti matetri er of f act.” In th e a l ter n ati v e, th e S tate

co nt en de d t ha t , if t he cir cu it co ur t did “not allow t he Pe op le to make t his arg ument t o t he trier of f act, t hat being fli ght and co nscio usne ss o f guilt, ” t hen evide nce t hat defend ant
was app re hende d in No rt h Car olinaa nd was carryi ng fal se i de nti f i ca ti on was nev ertheles s adm

is si ble to show t he ci

rcumstances of his arre st. I n p arti

cul ar, ci ti ng to People v. Hayes , 139 Ill . 2d 89, 130-31 (19 90), the S tat e mai ntained that evidence of defendant’s arrest in N o r t h C ar o lina w as ad miss ible t o ex pla in w hy his appre he ns i on was d el ay

ed until three months

after the cri

me s occurred. Fo llowing the

he ari ng on th e Sta te’ s m ot i on, the c i

rcui t court is sued an o r de rin

whi ch i t reserved ruli

ng on whether

t he St at e w o uld be allowed to argue that defendan t’s fl igh t t o Nor th Caroli

na sh owed-14- consciou snessof g uilt. In it s o rd er , t he circ uit co ur t set for t h a “f ramework f

or a future determin

ation of the issue,” expl

ai ni ng: “The in feren ce of guilt wh ic h may be dra wn fro m fl ight depends upon the knowl edg e o f the suspect that t he off ense hasbeen comm itted and t hat he is o r may be su sp ec t ed

. While evi dence that t he Def

endan t was awar

e that he was a suspe ct is essen tial to prove fl

igh t, act ual knowle d ge o f his p o ss ible arrest is not necessary

to render su fficie nt ev ide nc e a dmis sible wh eret her e is evide nce fr om which s uch fac t may be i nf erred .” The circu it co ur t invited t he St at e “t o s ubmit a pr e- t rial pr offer of t he evi dence t ha t it wo uld adva nce a t t rial t hat wo uld sho w t hat t he Defend ant had k no wle dge that the charged liquor store crim es had been com m i tted a nd tha t he wa s a wa re or [ sic ] ma

y h ave b een sus pected .” The re aft er , ho weve r, t he Sta te ex pr es sl y de cl i n ed to ma ke such a pr offer and no furt her or der was ent er ed byt he co ur t o n t his is sue. W i th respectto de f

en da nt’ s p oss es si

on of false ident ifi

cat ion at t he t ime o f his a rr es t , t he cir cu it cour t gra nte d the Sta

te’ s m oti on in limine . The ci

rcuit court st ated: “W here t he Defe

ndan t uses a differe nt name fro m his own, que st ioning re gar ding t he defend ant ’s t ru e ident ity is releva nt in that it serves to clari

fy the Def endant’s t rue id en t it y. Ide nti f i ca ti on is cl early an i ssue i

n thi s case a

nd ev id en

ceof t he Defe ndan t’s use o f an as su med na me is eq ua lly cle ar ly
re levant and m

a t er ial to t he issue of t he ident ity o f the off ender. Also, evidenc e o f the use of a false name a fte r t he
com m i ss i on o f a c r ime is comm

only accepted as r elevant and adm i ssi bl e as to the i ssue of

cons ciousness

of g uil t.” Su b se qu en tl y , a t tri al, the S tate

in tro duced t he testimony

of FBI Agent R aymo nd Duda. Duda briefl y testif ied, wi thou t cro ssexaminat ion, that he arrested defen dant in side an ap art men t in Charl ot te, Nort h Carolin

a, on August 4, 199 9. Dud a st at ed t hat , a t t he t ime o f his a rr es t , d efe ndan t po ssesse d a social

securi ty card an

d a Nor th Caro li na stat e identifi

cat ion card bear ing defendant’s pho t og ra ph. Both cards w ere in the nam e of Joaqui

n A le xan der Mc Ca ll.-15- In ad dit io n t o Du da ’s t es t imo ny, t he St at e a lso br iefly re f er re d to defendant’s ar r es t in

No rt h Car olinaan d h is u se o f an as su med na me dur ingits o pening s t at ement t o t he jur y. And, dur ing clos ing
arg um en t, t he pr os ecu t or t wice s t at ed t hat defend ant was using t he
n am e Joaq ui n Mc Ca l l at th e ti me of h i s a rre st. Defend ant now contends t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t er r ed in admit t ing evi dence o f de fen da nt ’s fligh t t o an d a rr es t in N o r t h C ar o lina a nd his
use o f an as su med na me. De fen da nt ca st s his ar gu men t so lely in t er ms of wh et he rit was pro per for t he Stat e to use this evi dence to establi sh his co nsc io us nes s o f gui lt f or t he cri

me s at iss

ue i n thi s case. Defend ant ackn

owl edge s, as

a gen eral matter, that both

ev i denc e of fli ght and t he us e o f an as su med na me ma y be a dmis sible asproof of consciousnessof guilt. See, e.g. , People v. Lew is , 165 Ill . 2d305, 349 (1995 ); 2 K. Broun, McCormi ck onEvidence §263, at 217 (6th ed. 2006) ; M. Gr ah am, Cle ar y & Gr ah am’ s H an db o o k o f I llino is Evidence §801.3, at 6 32 (8 th

ed . 20 04 ). D ef

en da n t m ai n tai n s, h owev er , that to establi sh consciousness of

guil t from f li ght and the use of

an assum ed
nam e, the Stat e m

ust show that t he def

endan t kn ew he wa s being
so ught in conn ection wi th the charged cri me. Fu rther, while defend ant concedes that t here was

“m assi ve”nat ionwid e pu blicity reg ar ding t he shootingsat iss ue in t his cas e, he ma in tains that t he State’s own evi dence es t ab lishe s t ha t de fen da nt left immed iat ely after the cri me s at the l i quor store oc cur re d and t hat he “wa s no longe r in Oak Lawn when the publ i ci ty ba rragebe ga

n. ” A cc ordi ng to de f en da nt, “ [n]ot
o nly di d the s tatef

ai l to est abl ish

that [ defendan

t] k new he was a
su sp ect, it establ

is hed t hat he left befo re he co uld have kno wn t hat t he police suspected hi

m.” Thus , de f

en da n t con ten dsth at “ [t]h

e state fai le d t o lay t he fo unda t ion nec essa ry t o a dmit e vidence t hat [d ef en da n t] had f le d to and was a

rrested i n Nor th Car olina o r t hat he
was us i n g a n as su med n am e, an d i t wa s i m prope r to argue that was
evi den ce of his consci

ousness of g uil t.” The Sta te, i n re sp on se , c orre ctl

y ob se rves th at th is ar gu men t is proce du r ally

defau lted beca use defend ant failed t o includ e it in hi s postt rial motion. See Peo

ple v. Enoch , 122 Il

l . 2d 176 , 186 (1 988). Nevertheless, pur sua nt to Supreme C ourt Rul e 615(a) (134 Ill 2d R. 615 (a )) , “[ p] lain err or s o r d efect s affect ing subs t ant ial right s may be noticed altho ugh t hey wer e no t broug ht to the attention of the trial court.” Be fo r e in vo kin g t he pla in e rr o rex ce pt io n, ho we ve r , “it is-16- appr opri ate

to consi der wh ethe r error occurred at all .” People v. Wade , 131 Il

l . 2d 370 , 376 (1 989). Th

e ci rcui t court er r s inadmit t ing evi dence o nly if it ab us es it s d isc r et io n in d oin g so. People v. Robinson , 217 Il

l . 2d 43, 6 2 (200 5). W i th respect to the issue o f fli gh t, w e n ote th at, con tra ry to defendant’s as se r t io ns, t he St at e d id n o t at t emp t t o es t ab lish h is consciousnessof guilt bas ed on the f act he f le d to Nort h Carolin

a. Al thoughthe St ate ar gued in pretrial proceedings t hat def endant’s fli ght sh owe d c on sc i ousn es s of

gui l t, t he argumen

t was not pursued at tria l . At n o tim e di d the State sugges t to t he

j ury t hat defend ant fl

ed to Nort h Carolin

a becaus e he was

co nscio us o f having co mmi t t ed t he crim es at is sue i

n thi s case. Throught he t est imony of Age nt Dud a t he State did i ntroduce evi dence t ha t de fen da nt wa s a rr es t ed in Nort h Carolin

a. Ho weve r, t he St ate ’s onl

y n oteworth

y men ti on of de f en da n t’s ar re st c am e d uri n g i ts op ening st at ement t o t he jur y, whe re t he pros ecutor sugg ested

there
was a d ela y in ap pr ehe ndin g d efe n da n t b ec au se

h e w as i n Nor th Caroli na: “The Oak Law n po lice wer e no w loo king for Ricardo Harr is; butladies a nd ge nt lemen, t heir se ar ch didn’ t r eally turn up much– notu ntil

August 4, 1999, when the def endan t was captured an

d a rre ste d b y th e FBI . H e w as

f oun d i n Nor th Caroli na. He was f

ound li vi ng u nde r an assum

ed nam e. He was f ound in possession of identif

ic ation unde

r that assumed
na me, but wi

th h i s ph otograph on

i t.” Evidence that defenda

nt was apprehen

de d in Nort h Carolin

a was cle ar ly ad m i ssi bl e as a ci rcum stan ce of his arre st. People v. Hayes , 139 I ll. 2d 8 9, 130 -3 1 ( 199 0) . We co nc lud e, t he r efo r e, t ha t t he cir cu it courtdid n

ot abuse i

ts discretion in

adm ittin g t ha t evide

nce. Co ns eq ue nt ly, we a lso c onc lude t her e wa s no plai n error. See People
v. Keene , 169 Ill . 2d 1 , 17 ( 19 95 ) ( all p lain e rr o r s a r e r ev er sible errors). W i th respectto the fal

se identif ic ation di scovered

wit h defend ant at the ti me of his arre st, we n

ote that the

ci rc uit co urt o ff

ered two rationales f

or i ts adm is si on: the evi

dence was re levant t o e st ablishing defendant’s id en t it y and it wa s r ele va nt t o es t ab lishin g h is consciousnessof g uilt. In t wo st at ement s made dur ing clos ing argumen t, the Stat e di scussed def endan t’s use of an

assum ed nam e,-17- butso lely in t er ms o f clar ifying de fe ndan t’s identity. The f

irst sta te ment came whil

e the p ro secut or was rec ount ing Agent Duda’s de scri ption of de f en da nt a nd em phas izi ng the ac cu rac y of th e composi te sketch of the gunm

an prepared b

y H el en Ch

is nick: “W hat did [Duda] sa

y about the de fendant’s we igh t ? Wha t did he say about him

? Oh , I know, he said that he had t h e ide nt ifica ti ons, ev i den tl y h e’ s J oaq ui n Mc Ca l l . Th at’ s r i gh t, he’s Jo aq uin Mc Ca ll. B ut we ’llca ll him Ric ar do Ha rr is t o da y, o ka y, fo lks

. Bu t wh at did he sa y abo ut him besi des that he was J o aq uin McC al

l on tha t day ? H e sa i d tha t he w as s i

x f oot, a hundred and e ight y-fivepounds. Boy, eve rythi ng Hel en h ad to say abo ut him i

s ac t ually right on. The co mpo site [sk et ch] was right on, the

we i gh t an d the h ei gh t, ev ery thi ng i s ri gh t on ab out the de f

endan t.” Dur ingrebuttal, the prosecuto r again me ntioned the

assum ed
na me withi

n the context of di scus sing He l en ’s i denti f i ca ti on of de f en da n t: “And wh at a b out th at i n f orm ati on [w h i ch He l en prov i de d to t he po lice]? S pec ial Agent Du da t o ld you that when

Ri cardo Ha rr is was taken i

nto cu st o dy i n N o r t h C ar o lina, he wa s s ix f oot tall , one in

ch dif feren t [t han Hel en’s descri ption], hundred and eight y-five

pounds, fi

fteen pou nds heavier [than Helen’s des cri pti on], and goi

ng unde r the nam e of Joaqui

n McC a ll. You can read it. It’s got the in

form ation on there. Al

exan der Mc Ca ll. And

is suedJune 1st, 1999. You wil l b e abl e to see that.” The Stat e di scussed def

endan t’s assum ed n am e on l y to cl ar i f y th at, al thought he ide nt ifica t io n fo un d o n d efe nd an t bo r e t he na me Jo aq uin Alexander

McCa ll, it wa s, in fac t , d efenda nt who was ar re st ed, and f urthe r, tha t i t wa s def en da nt’ s p hy si ca l de scri ption whi ch was on t he Nor th Carolin a stat e identi fi

cation card. E vidence of defen dant’s use of an assum

ed name s erved to clarify defendan t’s t rue ident ity. As
su ch , it wa s p r o pe r ly

adm i tted. See, e.g. , People

v. Berlin , 75 Ill . 2d 266 (1 979). In hi s briefs to this court , defen

dant does not address the c i r cu it
cou rt ’s ruli

ng that t he false ide nt ifi

cat ion wa s re levant t o e st ablishing his true i den

ti ty b ut, i n ste ad , a ss er

ts o nly t ha t t he St at e in t r o du ce d h is
use of a n assu med na m e to pr ove his co nscio usne ss o f guilt. Again,-18- how eve r , the State

did not m

ake th at argum en t to t he j ury . Furth

er, even if t he ad miss ibilit y o f t he fals e id en t ifica t io n is v iew ed so lely in t er ms of estab l i sh i n g c on sc i ousn es s of

gui l t, a n d ev en i f i t i s considered

unde r t he st anda rd s for admissio n sug ges t ed byde f en da n t, there wasno error. In a s up ple men t al pro se respo nse to the S tat e’s m oti on in limine , defend ant ad mi

tted th at he kn

ew he was

a suspect i

n the sh oot in gs “day s” af ter t hey occurred. The pro se response st ates: “[D] efenda nt did no t be co me a s us pe ct in the crim e until May 15 thwh ich is when p olice lea rne d o f his identit y. The defend ant wastotall

y una ware of a n a rmed rob bery ha vin g taken pla ce , o r o f him ha vin g b ec o me a su sp ec t un t il d ays l ater.” Dur ingt he hea ring o n t he St at e’s mo t ion in limine , de fen da nt ag ain tol d t he co ur t , “I didn ’t know any thin g about an y cr ime he r e in I llino is
un t il sub seq uen tly af ter l ea vin g t his S t at e. Whic h w as a c o up le d ays l ater.” Defend ant expr essly co nced ed t o t he ci rcuit court t hat, at t he t ime t he St at e es t ablished he was using an ass um ed n am e, i.e. , when h

e was arrested in

August of 1999, he kn

ewhe wa s a su sp ec t in

the crim es at is sue i n th i s ca se. Gi ven these f acts, we con

cl ude that the c i

rcui t court did not er r in ad mitt ing evidenc e o f defend ant ’s u se of fal se ident ifi cat ion, ei ther as a matt er o f establi shin g defendant’s i denti

ty or his consciousness of

guil t. Co nsequen

tly, we fi nd no pl ai n error as we ll.
Evidence That Defendant Purchased and Used Dr ugs Bef ore trial , defen

dant move d in limine t o e xclude any t est imony by Fr an k S ar elli that defenda nt purchased or used

dr ug s w it h S ar elli dur ingt he t ime defenda nt was st aying at t he Aloha Mo t el. T he cir cu it
co ur t denied t he mot ion. Subsequen

tly, at trial , Sarell

i testi fi ed regardin g drug sal es m

ade to defend ant . S ar elli stat ed t hat when he first met d efenda nt at t he Aloha Mo t el on M ay 11, 199 9, defend ant ask ed S ar elli where he
co uld bu y drugs. Sarell

i we nt to defen

dant’s room and a

ll owed defend ant to try some

of his crack co caine. Defe ndan t t hen asked Sa r elli if he

would buy

hi m s ome crack cocai

ne. Sa r elli d id s o

. Sa r elli-19- also testifi

ed that he bough t crack cocai ne twi ce m ore for defend ant on the fol lowi ng day , May 12

. Ac co r din g t o Sa r elli, aft er t he se co nd drug pur ch as e on May 12, defen dant showed

hi m a Glock, .40-calib er ha nd gu n a nd as ke d w he t he rSa r elli c o uld se ll it fo rhim. Bef ore t his co ur t , d efenda nt states that the ci rcuit court admi

tt ed Sare ll i’s test im ony regarding the drug sales and drug usage because t he testim

ony pl aced def endan t fi ve b locks f

rom the Extra Va lue l i quor st o re ar o und t he t ime o f t he s ho o t ings . D efe ndan t co ntends, howe ver, th at i t i s i m prope r f or a wi tn es s to disc

us s ot h er cri mes to establi sh a d efe nd an t ’s pr o ximit y in t ime and pl

ace to t he cri

me scene. Defend ant further cl

ai ms that Sarell

i c ould ha ve testif ie d that he had
seen defend ant at t he Aloha Mo t el witho ut mentio ning the drug sales ordr ug us ag e, an d “ no vio le nc e w ou ld h av e b ee n d o ne t o his testi mony .” Ac co r di ng ly, defend ant maintains t hat Sar elli’s tes t imony
re gar ding the drug sal es and drug usa ge was irre levant and prejudi ci al and sh ould ha ve b een ex

cl uded. We di sagree. “[E]vi dence of o t her cr imes co mmi t t ed by de fendant may be admi tt ed if relevan t t o est abl ish any mate rial qu est ion o t her t han t he pr open si ty of the def

endan t t o commi

t a crim e.” Peo ple v. Stewart , 105 Ill . 2d 22, 62 (1984). “W hen such ev ide nceis o ffer ed , it is incumbent upon the trial

judge to weigh the relevan

ce of the ev

ide nce to est ablish the purpose for which i t is off ered agai nst the prej udic ia

l eff ect th e i n trod uc ti on of su ch evide nce may have upo n t he def endan t.” Stewart, 105 Ill . 2d at 62. Co nt ra ry t o d efenda nt ’s as ser t ions, Sar elli’s tes t imony reg ar ding drug sales and drug usa

ge wa s not a dm

i tted sol el y b ec au se of i ts relev ance to establ is hi ng def endan t’ s proxim

ity to the crim

e scene

. Dur inga b

ri ef he ari ng on d ef en da nt’ s m ot ion in limine , the S tate contended

that t he drug transacti ons between de fen dant and Sare lli
were relev ant and adm

is si ble becaus e they

showed “the cre di

bi l i ty of t he relationshi

p between Mr. Sarel

li and the de f

en da n t.”The S tate expl ai ned: “[I] t is our po si tion that it i s beca

use o f that relationsh

ip, because of

th e rel ati on sh i p th at Mr. Sar elli had with t he defend ant i

n th at h e w oul d b uy th e drugs for t he de fendant and do dr ugs wit h t he de fendant , t hat t he de fen da nt felt
co mfo r t ab le eno ugh t o s how Mr. Sar elli the gun t hat he was-20- in pos se ss i on

of and fel t co mf ort able enough to ask

Mr

. Sa r elli to try an d se l l that gun .” I mmed iat ely

foll owing t he St ate ’s argumen t, t he ci rcuit court issued
a ru ling on d efenda nt ’s mot ion i n w hic h t he co ur t agr eed wit h t he Stat e: “The Court fi

nds that the wi

t ne ss ’– t ha t is, Fr an k S ar elli sup plying dr ug s to t he de f

en da nt a nd the pre senc e tog ether of t he defend ant and t he wit ness fo r t he ne got ia t ion o f the purchase of d ru gs a nd t he us age of t he drugs puts into context the relatio nshipa n d

th e e xt en t

a n d n a t u re o f th e t i m e t h e t wo spent together an

d s pe ak s to th e wi

tn es s’ opp ortu

nit y t o obs er ve th e def

en da n t an d c l ea rl y goe s to th e i ssue of t he defendant’s ident ifi

cat ion and pr ese nce a nd pr oximity t o t he crim e scene

. The Court has co nd ucted a balanci ng test and f

in ds that t he prob ati

ve va l uef rom the ad m i ss i on of t his e vid en ce wo uld
su b sta n ti al l y outw ei gh i ts pre j udi ci al ef f ect. Theref ore, yo ur mo t io n in li mi ne is denied and t he
evi den ce m ay com e i n.” (Em phasi s ad ded.) The j urors we

re m ore like ly t o be lieve t ha t de fen da nt t r ied t o se ll Sa r elli t he Gloc k hand gun if t hey knew t he na t ur e o f t he r ela t io nsh ip be t we en t he t wo an d, sp ec ifica lly, t ha t Sa r elli had sh ared drugs wi

th defend ant and h

ad obtain ed drugs f orhi m on at least three o ccasions. See, e.g. , People

v. Cole , 29 Ill . 2d 501, 504-05 (1963) (ev i denc e of pri ordrug transactions ex

pla in ed and gav

e credence to what was ot herwise un r ea lis t ic te st imony reg ar ding a d ru g sa le bet wee n t he defend ant and an undercover offi cer). T he ci

rcuit cou rt d id n

ot abuse it s di screti

on i n a dm i tti ng ev i denc e of th e d rug t r an sa ct io ns o n t his basi s.
References to the Victims’ Families Defend ant contends that the Stat e i mpe rmissi bl y e li ci ted referen ces to the vi cti m s’ f am i l i esdur i ng the tri al tes ti mony of three witnesses. The f i rst suc h re f ere nc e oc cu rre d du ri ng the di rect exam

i na ti on of Hel en Ch is nick. At the begi

nni ng of h er testim ony, Hel en was asked several background questions by the prosecuto r, inc l

uding ho w o ld-21- she was and wh

at she did for a liv

in g. Helen was t hen as ked what she did on May

13, 1999, t he day

of the sh oot in gs. Hel en repl

ie d: “I t oo k ca re of my mot her . My mo t he r was bedr idden. She’d h ad a s troke . So she

wa s p ara l y ze d on the one si deof her. So I– my rou t inewould be I would get up in

the morni ng. I would ha

ve to change

her, fe ed he r brea kf as t, test he

r b l ood suga r.” The se con

d re f ere nc e that d ef

en da nt c on te nds w aserr

or took pla ce dur ing t he t est imony

of Chr istina Ch

i sn i ck . A t the be gi nn i ng of her dire ct examinat ion, Christ ina was also ask ed s ever al back gr ou nd questions, including whether she w as mar ried and w het her she ha d any childre n. Hel en answer ed that she was m arried an d that she had a nine-year -o ld so n. The t hird r efer ence oc cur re d du ring t he testim ony of Barul Pa t el, Dipak Patel’s wife. Testify in g prim aril y as a “ li fe and death” wi

tness f orthe Stat e, Bar

ulsta ted tha t sh e op en ed the Ex tra V al uel i quor store wit h her husba nd

at 9 a.m., lef

t to pick up h er y oun ger s on f rom school in the afternoon, and returned i n the e veni

ng to find tha t t he shootingshad t ake n place and t hat her husba nd had been t ake n t o t he ho sp it al. Li

ke Hel en an

d Chri stin

a, Barul was asked

sever al back gr ou nd

que st ions a t t he beg inning of her dire ct examinat ion, including whet her she was m arried, wh ether she h

ad any children, and what the ages of the ch

il dren were. Barul

answered that sh

e was ma rried to Dipak an

d that she had

t wo so ns who , a t t he tim e of trial in February 2004, were 21 and 16 y

ears old. Citing to People v. Hope , 116 Ill . 2d 265, 274 -7 9 ( 198 6) , a nd People v. Bernett

e , 30 Ill . 2d 359, 371 (1964), defen dant contends that the ref ere nc esto f am i l y mem be rs of t he vic t ims des cr ibed abo ve were im properly elic ited by

the Stat e i

n an attempt t o ap p eal t o t he emot ions of t he jurors. He m ai ntain s that he was den

ie d a f ai r tri al on this basis and, theref

ore, t hat hi s convi

ctions sh ould be reversed. The S tate co rr ec t ly o bse rve s t ha t t his a r gu men t is p r o ce du r ally defaul ted becaus e no objections were made to t he wi tnesses’ test im ony at tr ial

and becausede fen da nt faile d t o inc lud e t he iss ue in his postt rial

motion. See People v. Enoch , 122 Ill . 2d 176, 186 (1988 ). De f en da n t, i n r es pon se , con

ten dstha t the ad m i ss i on of the compl ai ned of testi mon y am oun ts to pla in e rr o r

. I n a dd r es sing de fen da nt ’s pla in-22- err orar gu men t , we fir st cons i der “ wh ethe r error occu

rred a t al l .” People v. Wade , 131 Il

l . 2d 370 , 376 (1 989). “[W ]he re testi mony i n a m urd e r c ase re spe ct ing t he fact t he deceased ha s le ft a s po us e a nd fa mily i s not e li ci ted inc id en t ally, bu t is presented i n such a manner as t o c aus e t he j ury t o be lieve it is ma t er ial, its adm is si on is hi ghl y prejudic ia

l
an d c o nst it ut es r ev er sible err orun les s a n o bje ct io n t he r et o is sustain ed and the j ury i

nstructed to dis

regard such ev

ide nce. In l i ke m an ner, we h

av e hel d tha t ju ry argumen

t by the pros ecution

wh i ch dw el l s u pon t he decedent’s f

am il y or seeks to relate a

defendant’s pu nish men t t o t he ex ist en ce o f family is in fl am ma to ry an d im proper.” People v. Bernette , 30 I ll. 2d 359, 371 (1964). “However, ‘[c]omm on sens e t e ll

s us that murder victim s do not li

ve i n a vacuum

and that , inmost cases, t he y le ave behi

nd fam il y m embers.’ ( People v. Free (1983 ), 94 Ill . 2d 378 , 4 15 .) Th us , e ver y ment io n o f a deceased ’s fam

il y does no t per seen

ti tl e the def

en da nt to a
new tria l . (Peo ple v. B artall

(1 983), 9 8 Ill . 2d 294 , 322.)” People v. Hope , 116 Il

l . 2d 265 , 275-7 6 (198 6). In this cas e, se ve ra l f

acts point to t he adm

is si bi li ty of the three witnesses’ t es t imo ny. Fi

rs t, unl ike the testim

ony a t issue i n cases such
as Hopeand B ernett

e , He l en ’s

an d C hr i sti na ’s tes ti mony di d n ot involve t he fa mily m

embe rs o f a

deceased v

ictim . Rather, Helen

and Chri stin a testif ie d as su rviving vic t ims descri bi ng thei r own personal backgroun ds. See, e.g. , People v. Wilson , 32 Ill . App. 3d 842, 847 (1975) (r eject ing ar gument broug ht un der Bernette , in part, because t he co mp lain ed

- o f t es t imo ny d id no t inv o lve fa mily m emb ers o f a deceased victim). In a ddit ion, Bar ul’s t est imony that she was m

arried to Dipa k was ne ces sary

to establ is h he r relationshi

p to Dipa k, and her t est imony t hat she h ad

ch i l dr en wa s n ec es sa ry to exp lain w hy she left t he l i quor store i

n the af ternoon . Both s tatem

en ts were a rel ev an t part of he r“life an d d ea t h” t es t imo ny. See, e.g. , People v. Free , 94 Ill . 2d 378 , 41 3-1 5 (1 983 ); People v. Speck , 41 Ill . 2d177, 20 1-02 (1 968),
rev ’d o n other grounds , 403 U.S. 946, 29 L. Ed. 2d 855, 91 S. Ct

. 2279 ( 19 71 )

. Fin ally, and most i mportant, the brief

testim ony e li ci ted by the Stat e from

the three witne ssesconsiste d s ol el y of int r o du ct o ry, back gr ou nd

questions. The

Stat e di d nothin

g to ma ke i t appear ma terial t o es t ab lis hi

ng gui lt or in

nocence. Thus , the testimony was-23- proper ly adm i tted. See, e.g. , People v. Pasch , 152 Ill . 2d 133, 199 (1992) (rejecti

ng ch alle nge un der Bernette , i

n pa rt, be ca us e “ man y of t he compl

ai ned-of questions consi

sted o f me r ely in t r o du ct o ry, foundational

que st ions pertaini

ng to t he wi

tness’ b ack ground, whi

ch
was proper” ); Peopl e v. Griffith , 158 Il l . 2d 476 , 484-8 5 (199 4). Cons eque ntl y , there al so was no pl ai n error. In add itio n t o c hallenging t he t est imony of He len, Chr istina a nd Ba rul, defend ant al so contends that he was den ie d a fai r tr ial because of comm ents the prosecutor ma

de about the two dece ased victims ’ fam il ie s dur ing t he o pening s t at ement t o t he jur y. While rec ou nt ing t he
ev en ts t hat t oo k plac e inside t he liquo r st or e du ring t he sho ot ings, t he pros ecutor

stat ed: “That bull

et t hat st ruck Dipa

k in the back ki

ll ed him. Dipak Pat el was bot h a fat her and a hu sband. ” Th e p ros ecutor also stated: “The def

endan t’s bul le t str uck Am

bal al Patelin the chest killi ng him. Am

bal al Patel was also a husban

d and father.” A defense obje ction at that point was sustai ned and t he iss ue wa s s ub se qu en t ly
ra ised in de fendant ’s po st t rial mot ion. We ag re e wi th defend ant t hat t he pr os ecu t or ’s co mments d ur ing t he op ening st at ement wer e er ro r. Ho weve r, we c anno t say t he
com men ts were s o imp ro per as t o wa rrant reversa l of defendant’s convicti ons. The c om

men ts were n ot dwe lled upo n by the S t at e in any way and no att empt was made t o r elate defendant ’s punishment t o t he exi stenceof the vi

ctim s’ f am il y. See Bernette , 30 Ill . 2d at 371. Furt her, d efense counsel’s obje ction to t he com me nts was sustain

ed and the j ury wasproperly in structed t hat the argume

nts of counsel
were not evidenc e tha

t i t coul d c ons i der i

n d eterm i ni ng gui l t or in nocence. Co nsider ed in t he co nt ext of th e en ti retrial, the c om

men ts did n ot prej udi ce

de f en da n t. Acco rd ingly, we c onc lude t hat t he
com men ts do not am

ount to rev ersi

bl e error.
Excusal of

Venireperson Smith f

or Cause Defend ant conten

ds that the c i

rcui t court viol ated the princ ipl es setf orth in Wither spoon v . Illinois , 391 U.S. 510, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776, 88 S. C t. 1770 (1968) , when i t excused prospective j uror Har ve y Smit h for cause. The State in

itially responds that this a

rgumen t i s forfe ited be cause def

endan t did not in

cl ude any referen ce to Smi th’s excusal in hi s postt rial

motion. However, the f

ai lure to preserve an
err orin a po st t rial mot ion may be excused w hen a tim el y tri al-24- obj ec ti on is ma de an d t he pu r

po r t ed er r o ris o ne t ha t ca n be r ais ed in
a po st co nvic t io n p eti

tion

. People Keene , 169 Il l . 2d 1, 10

(1995 ). Here, defend ant ob

j ected wh en th e c i rc ui t cou rt e x cu se d S m

i th after his voir dire exam

in ation, and a Witherspoonerror can be as se r t ed in pos tcon vi cti on proceedin

gs. See 725 ILCS 5/122–1(a)(1) (W est 2004) (pe rm i tti ng cl ai m s of “sub stantial

deni al of * ** r ight s und er t he Consti tution of t he Uni

ted St ates or of t he St at e o f Ill inois); People v. Ja ckson , 205 Ill . 2d 247, 271-72 (2001) ( addressi ng a Withers

poo n ar gument rais ed i n a po st co nvi ct io n p et it io n)

. Ac co r di ng ly, defen dant’s procedural de faul

t is ex cused. Witherspoonand i

ts progeny h

old that a de f

enda n t’ s righ t t o an im partial jury , guaranteedb y

th e s i xth an d f our tee n th am en dm en ts to t he Un i ted State s C ons

ti tution, proh

i bi ts th e re mova l of a pr os pec t ive j uror f or ca us e w he re th e p rospec t ive juror voi ces onl y ge neral objec t ions to the dea

th pena l ty. People v. Gilliam , 172 Ill . 2d 484, 509 (1 996 ). A pr os pec t ive juro r in a ca pit al case may, ho weve r, b e excused for cause b ased on hi

s bel ie fs regardin g the d eat h pena lt y when those bel

iefs wo uld “ ‘p re vent or subs t ant ially impair t he performa nce of his d ut ies as a ju r o rin

ac co r da nc e w it h t he law an d h is oath.’ ” ( E mph as is omi

tted.) Wainw

right v. W itt , 469 U.S. 412, 420, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 849, 105 S. Ct. 844, 850 (1985), quo ting Adams v. Texas , 448 U.S. 38, 45, 65 L. Ed. 2d 581, 589, 100 S . Ct. 2521, 2526 (1980 ). Be ca us e t he cir cu it co ur t is in a “ ‘s uperior position to gauge t he mea ning o f theprospect ive j uro r’s resp onses, ’ ” the co urt ’s de ci si on to remove a

p r o sp ec t iv e j uror for cause is e ntitled to gr eat deferen ce on revi ew. People v. Tenner , 157 Ill . 2d 341 , 363 (1 993), quo t ing People v. Emerson , 122 Ill . 2d 411, 439 (1987). The rem arks of a prospective j uror during the voir dire examinat ion must be considered

“not in iso la tion but as a wh ole.” Tenner , 157 Ill . 2d at 363. In a ddit ion, eac h voir d ire i s u ni que an d the p ropr

i ety of dismissing

a juror for cause must be co nsidered o n a case-by -case ba si s. People v. Williams , 161 Il l . 2d 1, 54

(1994 ). In th i s c as e, Sm

i th wa s q ue st io ne d e xt en sive ly du r ing his voir dire
exam i na ti on re gar ding h i s v

i ew s on th e dea th pen al ty an d h i s a b i l i ty to fair ly de ci dede f en da nt’ s c as e. A

t the cl ose of h is examinat ion, t he Sta te mo ved t o exc us e S mith fo r cause. The State mai ntain ed that b oth Smi th’s respon se s to q

ue sti oni ng an d h i s p hy si cal de mea nor dur ingque st ioning dem

onstrated his s

ubstanti al inabili t y to follow t he-25- la wand perf

orm his duties

as a j uror. The State not ed, i n pa rtic ular, that Sm i th ke pt “sha ki ng h i s head n o” through

out the ex am i na tion

. The ci rcuit court granted t he State’s m ot ion. The

court stated: “We ll, the Court has been pa rticular ly m ind ful o f t his juror ’s resp onse s in c o nju nc t io n w it h his bo dy c o nd uc t ; his body la nguag e, h is demea nor as he sat in the c hair, and t he Prosecution was correct when they said that. Even

when t he juro r indica t ed t hat he coul d pos si bl y orat one point he ev

en gott o t he po intof probabl y s ign in g a verdi ct imposing d eat h, his head wa s sha ki ng f rom side to side i

n a n o fash ion as i t had been through out the cours e of

thi s j uror’s

voi r di re. The Court fi ndsthat t hi s prospect iv

e juror’s respo nse s and de mea nor dem onstrated to the Court’s satisf action that

his views o n t he de ath pena lty wo uld p re vent or subs t ant ially impair t he performa nce of hi s du t ies as a juro r in acc or danc e wit h t he Cou rt ’s i nstructi ons as to the l

aw an d hi s oath as a j uror. Ac cordi ngl y , he ’sex cus ed f

or caus e.” Defend ant contends that t he ci rcuit court err ed

i n dism i ss i n g S m i th because there was “no ambi guity” i n Smi th’s answers during h

is voir dire ex am i n ati on. In d efenda nt ’s view, Smith “r epe at edly and
un amb igu o us ly

st at ed t hat he coul d f

ol l owth e l

aw an d i m pos e a de ath
sen tenc e.”Def

endan t ackn owl edge s the

ci rc ui t cour t’s fi

ndi ng that Sm i th was sh aki ng hi s head “ no” throughout hi s ques t io nin g. Howev er, def endan t conten ds that “[i ]t si m pl y i s i n appropri ate

t o r ely upon a p ros pe cti

ve j uror ’s de mea nor to excuse hi

m f or cau se wh ere he h as repeatedly

and un am bi guously promi se[d] to foll ow the l aw.” Thus, accordin

g to defen

dant, the ci

rc ui t co ur t er re d in dismissing Smi th for cause. Unl ike de f en da n t, we be lievet he r e w as co nsid er ab le a mbig uit y in Smi th’s voir dire responses. Although, at times , Smit h d id state t hat he co uld fo llo w the la

w as i nstructed, t here were sev eral i nstances
w hen he st at ed t ha t he co uld no t

. At t he o ut se t o f Smi t h’ s exam in ation, f or exampl e, the followi

ng exchan

ge too k pla

ce: “Q. [ by t he co ur t ] Ok ay. Ar e yo ur belie fs ab out th e dea th pen al ty such tha t reg ard l es s of the f ac ts of the cas e and regardless of

th e b ackg

rou n d of th e D ef en da n t t ha t if the D efen dant were f

oun d gu i l ty of f i rs t-de gre e m

urder, you wo uld auto matical

ly vote ag ainst imposing t he de at h p en alt y?-26- A. I t ’s a p o ss ibilit y. Q. Okay . Wel

l, can you gi ve that some thought and b e a lit t le le ss equi

voca l. Wo uld yo u b e in cline d t o au t o mat ica lly
vo t e a ga inst t he d ea t h pe nalt y re ga rd less o f– A. Yes. Q. –regardles s of the f

acts of the case and reg ard l es s of th e b ackg rou n d of th e D ef en da n t? A. Y es.” Later, t he f

oll owing e xch ange took place: “Q. [by t he co ur t ] S ir, if you believe t hat aft er hear ingall
o f th e f acts, al l of th e a gg ra v ati on , a n d al l of th e m i ti ga ti o n that the death penal

ty was the ap

pro pr iat e s en t en ce , wo uld you i m pos e i t? A. If afte r I had hear d ever ything; a l l the fa ct s, a nd
ever ything i s th

ere , I don’ t thi

nk so. T his que st ion her e, man, you know, si

r, I mean , your Honor, t hat is somethi ng there.

*** Q. *** [A]ll we

wa nt to d o i s m ake sure tha t youco uld be f air to b oth

si de s; ke epan

open m i n d i n th i s c as e, set yo u r personal b el i ef s a b out th e dea th pen al ty aside , a nd

j us t f ol l ow t he law as I give it to you. T hat’s all we wa nt t o do , an d my question is very

si mpl e to you. Can yo u do t hat and in do ing th at, co nsid er all of t he se nt encing o pt ions a nd if after hear ing all of the facts, all of t he ag gr avat ion, all of t he mitigat ion, and keep an op en m ind in the pr oc ess, you d et er mine that t he de ath penal ty i s the appropriate sen

tenc e, co uld yo u sign a
v erdi ct f orm to th at e f f ect? A. Yo ur Ho no r , t o be pe r fec t ly hon es t wi th y ou, Iam not 10 0 p er ce nt su r e. I am s o r t o f sp lit in between. I am

not 100 percent sure that I could.” Asked whether his vie ws r eg ar din g t he de at h p en alt y wo uld
su bst an t ially

im pai r hi s abi li ty to reach a fa

ir an d i mpa rti al de ci si on co ncer ningthe issue o f defendant’s gu ilt , S mith re plied, “Oh, yeah. Yeah

. Y es. Y es.”

Wh en ask ed f or fu rther c l arif

i cation, howev er, Sm i th stated t hat he co uld , in fa ct , fair ly de cid e d efe nd an t ’s gu ilt wi th out reg ard to p oten

ti al pu n i sh men t.-27- On ano t her oc cas ion, when t he ci rcuit court asked Smi

th whether he cou l d s et h i s b el i ef s a b out th e deat h pena lty aside and fo llow t he la was the cour t instruct ed, Smith repli ed, “Yes, Yes .” S ub se qu en t ly, howe ver, he tol d the c ourt th

at b ec au se

of his religio us be liefs, he was opposed to the deat h penal ty in mostsit ua t io ns a nd t ha t he co uld not put t he l aw bef ore t hose bel

ie fs . Smi th als o stat ed: “A. Put my

bel ie fs aside? I could hea

rit, but I could ne

ver put my be lief

s a sid e a nd sa y–

because what I be lieve in I be l i ev e i n.” Fin ally, at t he end of Sm

ith’ s exam in ation, the f

oll owing e xch ange to ok place: “Q. [by the court ] *** Co uld y ou loo k at bo th of tho se thin gs [the dea

th se n ten ce an d a ter m of i m pri son men t] w i th
an op en mind and dep endi ng on the f

acts choose either op t ion? A. There’ s a

pos si b i l i ty th at I could l ook at th em

b oth wi th
an op en mind, but making a d ecisio n t o c hoo se w ou ld be
ma yb e ki nd of h ard. It all de

pends on the f

acts presented. Q. It i s h ard, b ut c oul d y ou do i t? A. It all depends on the facts. Q. Ri gh t. A n d if you h ad th e f acts, cou l d y ou do i t? A. And if those facts was t rue and I beli eve i n these f acts and knew I ha d t he right fact s; kno wing it ’s t he right t hing and if I k new it was t he r ight fact s, t hen I could probabl y m ake
so me type of d ecisio n. Q. Could you si

gn a v erdi ct th at c al l ed f or th e dea th pen al ty if y ou wer e sa t isfied with t he fact s in fro nt of yo u and t ha t t he y wa rr an t ed t ha t pe na lt y? A. It’s a possib il

ity . It’s a possib il

ity . I mean

I wo ul d probabl y s ign it, y ou know. Q. Can yo u se e you rse lf doing it under t he r ight s fact s and the righ t case? A. Your Honor, like I sa id, if it’s t he fact s. I have t o ha ve the facts.-28- Q. I k n ow a n d l et’ s a ss um e th at y o u have the fa

cts that yo ube lieve ar e s uffic ien t t o jus t ify t he de at h p en alt y, w o uld you s i gn a v erdi ct th at prov i de d f or i t? A. Pos si bl y so, your Honor. Like Isaid, you know, I mean it’s a hard decisi

on for me. My own personal opin ion. It’s a ha rd dec i sion.” As th e S tatepointed out after this ex chan ge had taken pl

ace, even when Smi th assum ed the existence of f

acts that he, hi

ms el f, b elie

ved
were suf fi ci ent to impose the death pen al ty, Sm ith stil l de clin ed to say th at h e w oul d s i gn a dea th pen al ty v erdi ct. It i s true, a s de f

endan t arg u es, that at t im

es during hi

s voir dire
exam i na ti on Smi th in dic ated he co uld fo llow t he law an d p er fo rm his duties as a jur o r

. At o t he rt imes , ho we ve r , Smit h’s r es po nse s c lea r ly dem onstrated t ha t he co uld no t “se t as ide his o wn be liefs in deferen ce to the rule of

la w.” Williams , 161 Il l . 2d at 54, citi

ng Lockhart v. McCree , 476 U .S. 162, 1 76, 90 L . Ed. 2d 13 7, 149-5 0, 1 06 S. Ct. 1758, 17 66 ( 19 86 )

. “[ I ] t is p r ec ise ly i n s i tuati ons s uch as th i s, wh ere t he col d r ec ord su gg ests an ap par ent co nt ra dict ion, th at w e def er to t he ci rcuit court’s discretion.” Peo ple v

. Shaw , 186 Ill . 2d 301, 317 (1998 ), citing People v. Holman , 13 2 I ll. 2d 128, 148-49 (1989); see also Wainw

right , 469 U.S. at 434, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 858, 105 S. Ct. at 857. Moreover, i

n mak i n g i ts dec i si on w he the r to ex cu se Sm i th f or cau s e, the ci

rcuit court had to consider not o nl y Sm ith’ s am bi guous respo nses, but als o t he f

act that he had bee

n sh aki ng hi s head “no ” thr ou ghout the exa

m i na tion . “ ‘ [T]he

man ner of th e j uror whil e t est ify ingis oftentim es m ore indi cat ive o f t he r ea l ch ar ac t er o f his opi ni on than his words. ’ ” Wainw

right , 469 U.S. at 428 n.9, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 8 54n .9, 10 5 S . C t. at 854 n .9, quot in g Reynolds v. United States , 98 U .S . 1 45, 156 -5 7, 25 L . E d. 244 , 2 47 ( 187 9) . H er e, t he cir cu it cou

rt fou nd t ha t Smit h’s de mea no rind ica t ed , alo ng wit h his responses, th at h

e w as un ab l e to perf

orm hi s duties. This f

in din g must be giv en def eren ce. Se e, e.g. , Wainw

right , 469 U.S. at 426, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 853, 105 S. Ct. at 853 (“def er ence m ust be pai d to the trial j udge who sees and he ars th

e j uror”). Giv en the n atureof b oth Sm i th ’s re sp on se s to que st ioning and t he cir cu it co ur t ’s finding re gar ding his de meano r, we c anno t say t he cir cu it cou

rt a b us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n con cl udi n g th at S mi th’s views-29- wo uld have p re vent ed o r su bst ant ially impaired t he performa

nce o f his dutiesas a j uror. Accordin gly , we ho ld t ha t t he cir cu it cou rt di d n ot err when i t dism is sed ven ireperson Sm

ith f or cause.
Jury Question Regarding the Imposition of the Death Penalty for Two Murders In Morgan v. Illi

nois , 504 U.S. 719, 119 L. Ed. 2d 492, 112 S. Ct. 22 22 ( 19 92 ) , t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Co ur t he ld that a capital defend ant ha s a r igh t t o ch alle ng e fo rca us e a jur o rwh o wo uld
au t o mat ica lly

v ote to i m pos e th e dea th pen al ty upon convi

ction. See ge ne r ally People v. B uss , 187 Ill . 2d 144, 180 (1999) . P ur sua nt to Morgan , t he ci

rcuit court in thi s case stated, pri or to voir dire , t ha t it intend ed t o a sk e ach p ro spe ct ive juro r t he fo llowing q ues t ion:

“A re your beliefs such t hat re gar dless o f the fact s o f the
case ort he back gr ou nd o f the defend ant , t hat if the d efenda nt
were fo un d g ui lt y o f fir st de gr ee mur de r , yo u w o uld
au t o mat ica lly

vote to i m pos e the dea

th p en al ty , an d w oul d n ot consider sig ning a v er dic t wh ich wo uld r es ult in a sente nc e of impriso nment?” Defens e counsel

obje cted to the ci

rcuit court’s question. Counsel
move d to h av e th e c our t’s qu esti on repl ac ed wi th one whi ch asked t he pr os pec t ivejurors whether th ey wou l d a utom ati ca l l y i m pos e th e dea th pen al ty if t he “de fendant wer e fo und g uilty o f tw o mu rd er s.” The circui t cou

rt d en i ed cou n se l ’s moti on , s tati

n g th at th e q ue sti o n propo sed by the co ur t was “c onsi

sten t wi th the state of the l aw.” The reaf ter, t he cir cu it co ur t ’s qu est ion, as set forth above, was asked of e ach prospe cti ve j uror. Defend ant contends that the circui t cour t erred when i

t decli ned to as k h is propo sed que stion. Accor ding to defendant, the co urt ’s refusa l to ask the pro sp ec t iv e ju r o r s w he t he rt he y wo ul d a lwa ys im pose a de at h sent ence if the defen dant was convi

cted of mur der ing two pers on s den

i ed h i m h i s r i gh t to a n impart ial jury. De fendant
ac kn o wle dges tha

t thi s c l ai m has b een f

orf ei ted be ca us e i t wa s n ot in cl uded in hi s post trial m

ot ion. Defen

dant mai ntains, however, that t he ci rcu i t cou rt’ s rej ec ti on of

hi s proff ered question constitutes pla in
error. We disagree.-30- The argumen

t t hat defe ndan t raiseshere has been

rejected by t his courton several previ

ous o ccasions. See People v. B uss , 187 Ill . 2d 144, 180 -83 (19 99) ; People v. Jackson , 182 Il l . 2d 30, 5 7-62 (1 998); People v. B ro wn , 172 Ill . 2d 1, 29-31 (1996 ); People v. Hope , 16 8 I ll. 2d 1, 28-31 (19 95 ). D ef

en da n t pres en ts n o com pe l l i n g r ea son to depa rt from our holdin

gs in these cases and we de cl

i ne to do so. In lightof our prior de ci si

ons , we con cl ude tha t the ci rcu i t cou rt di d n ot
err when it declin

ed t o ask the pr ospe ctive juror s defense cou nsel’s propo sed qu esti on . Acc ordi

n gl y , w e a l so c on cl ude th at t he ci rc uit
cou rt ’s ru ling

di d n ot co n sti tute pla in error. See Keene , 169 Ill . 2d at 17 (al l plai n errors are

reversi bl e errors ).
Jury Ins tructio n on Unanim ity I llino is Pattern

Jury In str uctions, Cri

mi nal , No. 7C.05 ( 4th ed. 2000) (IPI Cri

m i na l 4th), i nf orms the s en tenc i ng jury th at a unan im ous verdict is r eq ui r ed t o imp o se t he de at h p en alt y. Fo r a defend ant who hasbeen convi cted of mul

tiple m urders, IPI Crim

in al 4th No. 7C.05 pro vides: “Un

der t he law, t he de fendant shall be se n ten ce d to dea

th if yo u u na nimo us ly

find tha t the re i s n o m i ti ga ti ng f ac tor suf fi ci ent to pr ecl

ude i mposi tion of a death s entence. If yo u ar e una ble to find unanimou sly that t her e is no mitigat ingfac t o rsu fficie nt t o pr ec lud e im p osi ti on of a dea th sentence , t he c o ur t will impo se a s ent enc e o f nat ur al life i m pri son men t, an d n o pers on ser vinga s ent enc e o f nat ur al life impriso nment can b e paroled or relea sed , e xcept through an order by the G overn

or for exe cuti

ve clem ency .” Su bseq uent to the adoption of IPI Crim in al 4th No. 7C.05, th e General Ass emb ly

am ended the f

irst degreemurd er st at ut e. See Pu b. Act 93–60 5, §10, ef

f . N ovember 19, 2003, amendin g 720 ILCS 5/9–1 (g). Th e mu rd er st at ut e, whic h fo r mer ly sta ted th at a de ath sentence sh al l b e i m pos ed i f th e j ur y f i n ds“n o m

i ti ga ti ng f ac tor
suf f i ci en t to prec l ude i m pos i ti on ,”n ow state s, i

n perti n en t pa rt: “(g) Procedu

re–J ury
*** If t he j ury

det er mines unanimou sly, aft er weighing t he f actors in aggravation a

nd mit ig ation, thatdeath is the-31- appropr iate sentence , t he co ur t shall sent ence t he de fendant to death. *** If after weighing t he fact or s in agg ra vat ion and mitigat ion,
one or m

orej urorsdeter

m i n es th at death is not the appropr iate sentence , t he co ur t shall sent ence t he de fendant to a term of i

mprisonm ent under Ch

apter V of the Unifi

ed Code of C orrections.”

(Em phases adde d.) 720 ILCS 5/9–1(g) (We st 2004 ). Rec og nizing

t his c ha ng e in t he st at ut e, t he cir cu it cour t in the case at bar modifi

ed IPI Crim

in al 4th No. 7C.05 t o stat e: “Un der the la w, th e def en da n t sh al l b e s en ten ce d to de ath if you, a fte r w eighing t he fact or s in agg ra vat ion and mit igat ion, unan

im ously fi nd that death i s the appropriat e sentence

. If you, af ter wei ghi ng th e f actors i n a ggra va t io n and mi t igat ion, ar e una ble to find unanimou sly that dea t h is the appr opri ate

sent ence , t he co ur t will i mpo se a sent enc e of natural lifei m pri son men t, an d n o pers on s erv

i ng a s en ten ceof natural lif e impriso nment c an be p ar oled or re leased , e xc ep t through an order by the G overn

or for exe cuti

ve clem ency .” In addi tion , the c i

rcui t court ma

de si mi la r change s to IP I C ri

m i n al 4th No. 7C.06 and t he verdict form presc r ib ed by IPICri m i na l 4th No. 7C. 09A. At the j ury i ns tructi on c on ference , de f ense cou ns el di d n ot dis agree with the c ircui

t cour t’s replac em

en t o f t he phr ase “no mitigat ingfactor suff

ic ie nt to preclude

impo sit io n” wit h “d ea t h is t he appr opri ate

sentence ” i

n the j ury i

nstructions an

d verdict f

o rm. Counsel di d, h owev er , c on

ten d th at ad dit io na l mo dific at io ns s ho uld be ma de. Counsel

argued that t he in structi ons a nd th e v erdi ct f orm sho uld be f urthe r m odi f i ed to state that, i f

“ one or more jurors determi nesth at dea

th is not t he ap pr op riat e se nt ence , t he Co ur t will im pose a s ent enc e o f nat ur al life im prisonm ent.” In o ther wo rds, defense counsel asked t he c o ur t t o mo dify

the in structions and v

erdict f orm to trac k t he langu age fou nd in t he se co nd pa ra gr aph o f the
am ended v ersi on of secti on 9–1(g) of the murder statute. The circu it co ur t re

ject ed d efenda nt ’s ad dit ional mo dificat ion. The court stated:-32- “The [c our

t’s ] m odi f i ca ti on on th is instr uct ion and t he
suc cee ding in

structions are bas ed on a chan ge in the la w as set f orth in Publi c Act 093-0 605, *** [the modifi cation] most clo se ly pa r alle ls th e ex i sti

n g I .P. I. wi

th th e l i m i ted ch an ge s to refl ect the change i

n the status of the law. So, it will be giv en in

for m and mat t er as p re sent ed by t he People ove

r the D ef en se ob j ection.” Defend ant now co nt ends t hat t he ci rcuit court err ed

in r efu sing his propo sed modi f i ca ti on . D ef

en da n t ar gues that hi s proposed
modif i ca ti on to the i ns tructi ons an d verd i ct f orm sho uld have been giv en because i t “ more c l ea

rl y i nf orm ed the j ury tha t i f an y j uror felt that death was not appropriate, the jur y c ould not sentence [d ef en da n t] to deat h.” Defendant maintains that the circuit cou rt ’s
error warr ants a new s entenci ng he arin g. We need n

ot deci de whether

th e c i rc ui t cou rt erre d b y re f us i n g to i n cor porate th e l an gu ag e of th e statu te i n i ts e n ti re ty

. E ve n if

we assum e, as def endan t contends, that t he circu it co ur t er re d, defend ant
was not pr ejudice d by t hat dec ision and the ref ore revers al

i s n ot warranted. Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 4 51 (a) s tate s, i

n perti n en t pa rt: “W hen ever I llino is Patt ern Jury

Instructions, Cri

mi nal (4 th ed. 2000) (IPI Crim

in al 4th), contains an

inst ruc t io n app lica ble in a cr imi nal case , g iving due c ons ider at ion t o t he fact s and t he go ver ning law, and t he co ur t det er mines tha t t he jur y sho uld be i nstructed on th

e sub j ect, the IPI C ri

m i na l 4th i ns tructi on sha ll b e u se d, u

n l es s th e c our t deter m i n es th at it does n ot
accuratel y state the l aw.” 2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 4 51(a). See also People v. Simms , 192 Ill . 2d 348, 412 (2000) ; Peo ple v. Gilliam , 172 Il

l . 2d 484 , 519 (1 996). Wh en a pattern j ury i ns tructi on does no t fair ly st at e t he la w, t he c irc uit co ur t is au t ho riz ed t o mo dify i t. People v. Hester, 131 Il l . 2d 91 ( 1989)

. In the case at ba

r, the circui

t cour t modif

ie d t he jury inst ru ct ions and verdict form to reflect what it concl uded was a m

aterial chan ge in t he fi rst degree murder statute, i.e. , t he r eplac ement of t he phr ase “no mitigat ingfact or sufficient to prec l ude i m pos i ti on ” wi th “ de ath is the appr opri ate

sen tenc e.”Defendan

t do es not co ntest t his modificat ion. Howev er, no ma terial chan ge was mad e in th e statu

te wi th re sp ect to-33- t he un an i m i ty re qui re men t; un der ei the r v ers i on of

se cti on 9–1 (g ), t he jury ’s decis ion to impose the death sentence had to be unani mous. A jury inst ru ct ion i s “ ‘t o c onve y to t he minds o f the jury t he correct prin

ci ple s of law applicable to the evidence submitted t o it. ’ ” People v. Salazar , 1 26 I ll. 2d 4 24, 464 (1 988 ), quo t ing People v. Gambony , 402 Il

l . 74, 81- 82 (19 48). Her e, t he in structions and v

erdict f orm gi v en to the j ury

prope rl y con v ey ed th e p ri n ci pl e th at u n an i m i ty
was re quir ed fo r t he imposit ion o f a dea t h sent ence . T hus, even if t he ci rc uit cou rt erre d b y n ot i n cor porati n g th e l an gu ag e of th e statu t e ve r ba t im, that error had

no effect o n the o ut come o f defendant’s
se n te ncing he ari

ng. A ccordi ngl y , the e rror washa

rm l ess . See, e.g. , People v. Ward , 187 Il

l . 2d 249 , 265 (1 999) (“ An error i n a j ury i ns tructi on i s harm l ess i f the re sul t of the tri al wo uld n ot have been di f f eren t if the proper i

nstructi on had b een

gi ven” ).
Whether Defense Couns el Was Ineffective for Not Presenting Certain Evidence During Mitigation Procee dings Throughout bo t h his t rial and sent encing p ro cee dings, defend ant refuse d to cooper ate wit h his at t or neys in the deve lop ment a nd pre pa rati on of m i tig ati on ev

i den ce. He i nstructed h

i s f am i l y mem bers not to s pe ak

wi th de f ense cou n se l an d r ef us ed to hel p defense i nv esti gators in their ef forts to uncover potential ly mi tiga tin g in formation. Defen

dant also re fused t o u nder go any te st ing wit h t he mi tigat io n specialis

t appointed by

the ci rcuit court, clin

ic al psycho log ist D r. Lar ry Heinr ich. Defend ant wa s a

dm oni sh ed b y th e c i rc ui t cou rt o n nu me rous oc cas ions reg ard

i ng the i m porta nc e of deve lop ingmi

tigation ev

ide nce and the im

pact hi s refus al to coop era te w i th c oun se l

woul d have on his cas e. Neve rt heless, defend ant re pea t edly to ld t he co ur t he had no in terest i nco op er at ing wit h eithe r c ou nsel o r H einrich. Defend ant stated that he di d not want his attorn ey s to p res en

t an y m i ti ga ti on evi de nce a n d, m

oreth an on ce , a f f i rm ati v el y wai v ed h i s r i gh t to present m itigation ev

ide nce at the sen

tenci ng he arin g. Bef ore t hi s c ourt, d

ef en da nt d oesnot c ha l l en gethe ad eq ua cy of t he ci rcuit court’s admonishm

ents regardi

ng m iti gation or contend that he did no t und er st and t he imp o rt anc e o f p re sent i ng m i ti ga ti on evi dence. Nor do es def

en da n t ar gu e th at def ense cou n se l f ai l ed to-34- adequat e ly

in vestigate possib le

sources of m

iti gation. Instead, defend ant maintains t hat his at t or neys wer e co nst itu t ionally ineff ect ive because th ey

di d n ot i n trod uc e i n to evi dence certai

n m edi cal records which, despi

te defen da n t’ s l ack of coop erati

on , they wereab l e to
unco ver dur ing t he co ur se o f the ir invest igat ion. The medi cal records d efe nd an t po int s t o ar e fr o m a h o sp it al in Fl i n t, Mi ch i ga n . Th e rec ord s i

n di ca te t hat , in Ju ne of 1 988 , d efenda nt suf fered head i nj uries when he was struck by a car, and that in

May of 1992, he attem pted su i cide b y l eav i ng a car ru nn in

g in an en cl osed gar age . D efenda nt co nt en ds t ha t t he o nly r ea so n hi s a t t o rne ys fai le d to in tro duce these re co rd s wa s bec aus e de fendant i ns tructed the m not to d o so. D ef

en da nt f urth er c onte nds, h owe ve r, that the d ec i si

on t o in tro duce, orwi

thh ol d, m i ti ga ti on e vi denc e i s n ot a d ec i si on wh ich is left to a de f

en da n t i n cri m i n al proce ed i n gs . Inste ad , a cc ordi

n g to de f en da n t, the decision re st s s ol el

y wi th tr i al cou ns el asa m atter of trial stra tegy . Be ca

us e the dec i si

on to wit hho ld t he med ica l re co r ds in t his cas e wa s no t defend ant ’s t o mak e, de fen da nt maint ain s t ha t his at t or neys’ “de fere nce t o t hat dec ision, and conse que nt a bd i ca ti on of t he ir authority to make

that de ci sion, wa s su

bstandard pe

rf orma nc e.” Defend ant al so mai

ntain s thatthe me dic al

records wer e mitigat ing and that t he ir o miss io n fr o m t he se nt en cin g p r o ce ed ing wa s p r eju dic ial. Theref ore, de fe nd an t co nt en ds t ha t his at t o rne ys were co nst it ut io na lly in eff ective. Defe ndan t’s argumen

t t hat counsel

withh el d the me dic al

records
so lely at his request i s n o t su pp o r t ed by t he r ec o r d. On Fr id ay, Feb ruary 6, 200 4, just befo re t he ag gr avat ion- mitigat ion p hase of t he sent encing heari

ng was to begi

n, def ense couns el

reques ted a continua ncef or “ one l as t oppor

tun i ty” to e xp l ai

n to d efen dant t he eff ect that his lack of coo perat ion had on hi s case. During the cour se of discu ssing the request, t he ci rcuit court asked cou

ns el to ex pl ai n f or the re cord

what had be en done to obtai

n m i ti ga ti on ev ide nc e. While
re co unt ingthe e f

f or ts that had been m

ade and the di

ff ic ulties encountered

because of

de f en da nt’ s l ac k of coop era ti on, cou ns el f or defen dant stated: “The in vestigator also procur

ed docum ents from several hospital s in Michigan as wel

l a s there were some s ocial
ser vice–he was

–Mr. Ha rr is ha d b ee n se nt en ce d p r ev io us ly in Mi chi gan and h e was gi ven –he was s entenced

to some I guess-35- yo uwoul d c al

l i t l i keHa y mark et here i n I ll i nois , bu t so me social cent ers to be ev

al uated and thi

ngs l ike that and we obtaine d rec ords f rom those p l ace s. Therewas a psy chol ogical
eval ua ti on tha t wa s p art of

t he dis covery a

nd w e tender ed all of those materials to t he mitigat ion expertDr. Heinrich and
we prepared every

thin g that we could outside of the fact t hat Mr. Ha rr is w o uld not coo perate. He would not t ake an y tests and he mad e t ha t cle ar o n t he r ec o r d o n se ve r al o cca sions.” (Em phases adde d.) On t his sa me d at e, t he cir cu it co ur t admo nished d efenda nt re gar ding his r ig ht to present m

iti gating e vi dence. Def

endan t formal ly wai ved that righ t. Then, “out o f an

ab un dan ce of cauti on,” the court concl uded t hat it w ou ld be ap pr op riat e t o g ive defend ant t he we eke nd to, onc e agai

n, consi de r hi s dec i si

on n ot to co ope

ra te wi th hi s atto rney in the p re par at ion o f mi

t igat ion. The followi

ng Monday

, February

9, 2004, de fen da nt wa s a ga in adm onis hed. A s b ef

ore , de f en da n t af f i rm ati v el y wai v ed h i s r i gh t to pr ese nt mi

tigation ev

ide nce duri ng the sen tenci ng he arin g. T he cir cu it courtt hen as ke d d efe nse co uns el t o ag ain s et fo rt h, fo r the reco rd, what m itigation ev

ide nce h ad been uncovered. Counsel

stated: “The i nv esti gator was

ab l e to determ

i ne there were me dic al records , o bta ined medical records from several hospitals, and locations in the Michigan and Ann Harbor [sic] Flint area

. The re wa s al so record s un

cove red th rough the d i scovery proces s i n re gards to seve ral soci al serv i ce outpoststhat Mr

. Ha rr is had b een ass ign

ed to dur in

g t he eig ht ies , an d o n his previous casesweha

d obtai ne d a m i ti ga ti on expert report , as one was appoin

ted to thi s c as e p re v i ous l

y to our appoi n tmen t, Dr. La rry Hei nri c[h]. Dr. Hei nric[h] did in

terview the defe ndan t, had ameet ing wi th hi m , wasuna

bl e to perf orm a ny tests on Mr. Har ris, by Mr . H ar ri s’ ch oi ce n ot to do th at. Wedid gi ve Dr . H einr i c[ h ] a l l th e i n f o rm a t i o n th a t

we had uncovered to in corporate into a report . I met wi th Dr. Heinr ic[h] on numerous occasions, wen t ov er th e rep ort, went
ov er an y possi

bl e opportun

i tie s or are as w e coul

d ex plore-36- out side of t he de fendant ’s lack of c oo per at ion t o make t hat reporta mitigat ing re po rt t o be able t o p re sent mit igat ing evi dence to the j ury orcou rt, w h i ch ev er we are g oi n g to do.” *** Wh atever wa s i n th ere wetri ed to f ol lo w-up on, your Honor, and wh

at it led to was hospi

tal records and different thin gs li ke that, where we were abl e to, in some cas es, fi

nd, and other cases we

ran i nto dea d en ds, but w e did everything
wecould to get

al l that information as led to the mitigation expert , whi ch

i s al l we h ad at the en

d.” (Em phases adde d.) Thereaf ter, t he ci rcuit court st ated: “While we’ re sti

l l outsi de th e pre senceof the j ury an d at sideb ar, I wan

t to ask the d

ef en se, I k now t hat I a ske d t he de fend ant a s er ies o f qu es t io ns la st Fr ida y, a s w ell a s t his morni ng, co nc ern i

ng hi s i ns i stenc e a

nd de si re th at y ou n ot pr ese nt any mitigat ion evide nce o n his behalf. I n fact , he even s aid he didn’ t wan

t you to arg

ue f or a pen al ty other t ha n dea t h, butyo uh av

e i n di ca ted i n oth er si de b ar s, an d Iwa n t to
ma ke th i s a matte r o f r ec o r d, t ha t yo u a lso ha ve st r at eg ic
re aso ns for y

our decisi

ons not to present an

y m i ti ga ti on evi den ce, i n addi tion to the def

endan t’s expr ess des i re n ot to have any presented, is

that t rue? MR. McQUA

ID [Defense counsel

]: That’s true. MR. FA HY [Defen

se counsel

]: That’s true, Judge. THE CO UR

T: D o y ou w an t to el aborat e o n t ha t at all? You don ’t h ave to. MR. McQUA

ID: Judge, it i s j ust that Dr. Heinr ic[h] , t he
m i ti ga ti on special ist, we’re in recei

pt o f h is re port , and we have tendered i

t to t he state’ s attorne

y prosec uti ng th i s m atter, and we h av e r ev ie wed that, and as a trial la wyer, I see ab so lut ely no mi tigation i n that repo rt, essential

ly because my cl i en t ref use d to cooperate wi

th Dr. H ei

nri c[h]. It is ju st a s t r at eg ic de cis io n. As a t r ial la wye rI t hink it besti f you are goi

ng to put f

ort h ev ide nc e, it be t r iab le evi dence an d evi dence that i s persuasi

ve.-37- We don’t have that, Judge, so we’r e no t go ingto attempt to j ust throw s ome

thi ng u p there tha

t I thi nk woul d ba

ckf i re and j ust b ecom

e add i tion al aggra va tion f or the State.” Fr om the for ego ing, it is cl

ear t hat de fendant’s at t or neys ga ve t he
me dic al records that defend ant asserts should have been in tro duced at t he sentenci

ng he arin g to Hei nrich, the m

itigation speci

alis t. Heinri ch prepared a report whi

ch i ncorporat ed

t hat informat ion, and co un se l, f orst r at eg ic r ea so ns, ch o se no t t o pr es en t it

. No t hin g in the re cord suggests, asde f

en da nt c on tends, t hat his at t or neys wit hheld t he
me dic al re co rd s fro m the s ent encing hear ingbe ca us e d efe nd an t t o ld them tha t was what he wan

ted done. Moreover, it i s apparent f rom the record why

counsel ch ose not to in tro duce the m

edi cal records. Although the records f rom 1988 do i n di ca te t hat defend ant suf

fered s erious phy

si cal in juri es f oll owing a n au t o mo bile ac ci

den t, t her e is no indicat ion t hat defend ant suffer ed a ny ne urolog ic al

im pai rmen t and there is

no in dic ation of an

y c ausal
con ne cti on bet wee n t he injuries a nd t he shootings at the Extra Value l i quor st o r e in 19 99

. T hu s, t he ev ide nc e o f ph ysic al inju ry in defendant’s medi cal

rec ords f rom 1988 would ha

ve b een of n o h el p to
co unse l in the p re sent at ion o f his case in mitiga t ion. As def endan t notes, thereis a state

men t i n th e m ed i ca l repor ts f rom 1992 that defenda

nt had “ Bi po l ar af f ec ti ve di sorder, n

ot ot herwise sp ec i f i ed ,”an d th at def en da n t h ad “ an ti soc i al pers on al i ty trai ts.” But this di

agnosi s was m

ade seve n ye ars bef ore t he sh oot in gs at the li quor sto re in

1999. Because def

endan t refused to undergo any psy chol ogical

testi ng n ear the ti me of tri al, de fe nse co un se l wo uld have h ad n o wa y to re l ate t he dia gn o sis in

1992 to defen

dant’s m ental h ea l th at t he t ime of t he se nt encing he ar ing o r a t t he t ime of t he shoot in gs. Thu s, a gain, t he evide nc e o f ps ycho lo gic al p r o ble ms in de fen da nt ’s med ica l re co r ds wo uld ha ve be en o f no he lp t o co un se l. Furth er, the me dic al

records from 1992 were, in certa in respect s, cle ar ly detri men tal to defend ant . T he r eco rd s st at e t hat defend ant was depressed at t he t ime of his suicide at t empt beca use , in his wo rd s, he
was “i n bi g tro uble wi

th the la w.” Defen

dant did n ot ide ntif y w hat that t r o ub le was . I n add itio n, t he r ec o r ds co nt ain ba ck grou nd i nf orm ati on regardin g defen dant whi ch i ncl uded the fol

lowi ng:1 A “tet her” is a n electronic home monitoring device. See People v . Shee ts , 223 Mich. App. 651, 653, 567 N.W.2d 478, 479 (1997).
-38- “He jus t go t o ut o f jailin June o f 199 1 and has be en o n a tether[ 1 ] an

d al so on pol i cehol d. H e w asi

n j ai l f ortwo years. He was i n two auto thefts an

d some other ch

arg estha t got him in prison. He was gi

ven an option of b ei

ng i n j ai l f or four y ears or for bein

g in jai l f or t wo years and bei

ng on a house
arrest for two m

ore y ears . He ch

ose the sec ond one.” Giv en this in form ation, the 1992 m

ed ic al records could hav

e been used by the Stat e to r ei

nf orce defen

dant’s prior crim

in al record. “[ S] t r at eg ic choi ces m

ade af ter thor ough i nv es ti ga ti on of law and f acts relevan

t t o plausi

bl e o pti ons a

re vi rtual l y unc ha l l engeabl e.” Strickland

v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 690, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 695, 104 S. Ct . 2 052 , 2 066 (1 984 ). In t hi s case, the m edi cal records at is sue con ta in nothin

g regardin

g defen dant’s ph ys ic al or mental
con di ti on t ha t de fen se co un se l co uld ha ve us ed in m i ti ga ti on and, at the sam e tim e, contain in form ation that co uld have been u sed by the St at e in ag gr av at io n. I n lig ht o f t his fact, we conclude t hat co unsel’s st r at eg ic de cisi

on to withh old the m edi cal re co rd s fro m the s ent encing hear ingdid n

ot fal l b el ow an obj ectivel

y reas onabl

e standard of care. Accor dingl

y, we reject defendant’s cl ai m of i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of
co un se l.
Constitutionality of the Illinois Death Penalty Statute Under

Apprendi and Ring Defend ant ar gue s t hat t he I lli nois d eat h pena lty st at ut e violat es t he pr inciples set for t h in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 153 L . Ed. 2d 55 6, 1 22 S. Ct. 24 28 ( 200 2) , be cau se, at t he
sec ond st ag e o f t he se nt en cin g p r o ce ed ing s, t he St at e is not required to prove bey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt that aggra

va tin g f actors out weigh t he mitigat ing fact or s befo re a de at h sent ence may beim po sed . We dis agree. As we re cent ly explained in People v. Thompson , 222 Ill . 2d 1, 54 (2006 ):-39- “[T ]he rules anno unce d in Apprendiand Ring are not ap plic ab le to t he se co nd pha se o f a dea t h pena lty pr oc eed ing in Ill in ois b ecause the trier

of fac t has a lread y found beyond a r ea so na ble doub

t the ne ce ss ary

ag gra va ti ng f ac tor f or i m pos i ti on of the deat h penal

ty and therefore cannot in crease the p enal ty b ey ond the statutory

maxi m um of death .” See also People

v. Mertz , 218 Il

l . 2 d 1 , 93 -94 (20 05) ; People v. Harri s , 206 Ill . 2d293, 326 -27 (20 02) ; People v. B allard , 206 Ill . 2d 151, 202 -05 (20 02) ; People v. Davis , 205 Ill . 2d 349 , 372-7 5 (200 2). T his case ill

ust ra t es t he pr inc iple

. T he jur y fo un d d efe nd an t elig ible f orthe death penal

ty af ter the Stat e proved he h

ad comm itted two or more m urders . A t th at poi nt, b ased exc lus iv el y on f actors pro ven beyond a r ea so na ble do ub t be fo r e t he jury, defen dant fac ed a

statutory
ma xi mum se nte

nc e of de ath . The j ury ’s

su bs eq uent wei gh i ng of agg ra vat ingand mit igat ingci rcumstances, and i

ts decis ion that

de ath
wa s the appropriate sentence, di d not violate Apprendior Ring because i t did n ot increa se t he maximum penalty alr ead y per mitt ed by t he jury ’s f

in din g of dea

t h el igi bi li ty. Accordi

ngl y, we rej ect de f en da n t’s argu men t on th i s p oi n t.

Whether the Illinois Death Pe nalty Statue Is Arbitrarily Applied Fin ally, de fen da nt ar gu es t ha t I llino is’ de at h p en alt y st at ut e “ is
ar bit r ar ily applie d, based on race, geography , procedur al e volu t ion, di screti on and m is takes of fa

ct.” We hav

e twice prev

iousl y rej ected t his sam e argume nt. See Thompson , 222 Ill . 2d at 54; Mertz , 21 8 I ll. 2d at 95- 98. Accor din

gly , we need not discuss thi s i ssue f ur ther except to note, as we did in Thompson , that defenda nt does not argue that race , geograp

hy or “ proc edu ra l evolut ion” a ct ually played any part in the dec is ion to seek or im pose the death penal

ty i n hi s case.

Con cl us i on For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, w e affirm defend ant ’s co nvictio ns and sentences. T he cle rk o f t his co ur t is direc t ed t o e nt er an o rd er set t ing Wedn esday Ma y 9, 2 007 , as

the da te on wh i ch the sente nc e of de ath entered in t he ci rc ui t cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty , i s to b e c ar

ried out. Defend ant sha ll

be executedin

the mann er pro vided by l

aw. 725 I LCS 5/119–5 (West 2004)

. The clerk of thi s court shall send a ce

rtif ie d-40- copy of the mandate in

this case to th e D i re ctor of Cor re cti on s, to t he warden of Tam ms Correctional C enter, an d t o t he wa rd en o f the in stitution whe

re defen dant is confi ned.
Aff irmed

.