FOURTH DIVISION April 7, 2011 No. 1-09- 2472 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) 04 CR 28307 ) JOS E R IV ER A, ) ) De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Ho no r ab le

) La wr en ce W. T er r ell, ) Judge Presidin

g. JUS TI CE LAVI N de livered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Ga llagher and J ust ice Pu cinski co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Af ter a j ury tria l , def endan t Jose R i vera wa s con

vi cted of three coun ts of p redatory crim in al sexual assaul t, t hree counts of cri

mi nal sexual assaul t, and fi ve counts of aggrav

ated
cr iminal s ex ua l ab us e a r ising o ut o f co nd uc t wit h his 13
- yea r - o ld s t ep da ug ht er an d h er midd le sch ool c l assmate. De f

endan t was a l so con vi cted of one c ount of

posse ssi on of chi l d pornograph

y . The trial court sentence d defen

dant to 75 years’ i

mprisonm ent. On appeal, defen

dant contends that: (1) his m

ot ion to suppress custodial statements was i

mproperl y de nied; (2) certain

ple ar ela t ed st at eme nt s w er e imp r o pe r ly ad mit t ed ; ( 3) t he ev ide nc e w as insu fficie nt t o su st ain his convicti ons; (4) t he trial court fail ed to comply

with Supreme Court Rule 431(b) (Ill . S. Ct . R. 431 (b ) (e f

f . Ma y 1, 2 007 )); (4) hi

s def ense cou ns el wa s i m prop erl y di sq ual i f i ed ; ( 5) h i s ri gh t to a pu blic t r ial w as vio lat ed ; ( 6) ce r t ain ev ide nc e a nd t es t imo ny lac ke d p r o pe rfo un da t io n; ( 7) ce r t ain prior cons i sten

t statem en ts were adm i tted to im properl y bol ster the cre di

bi l i ty of wi tnes ses ; (8)a1-09-2472

2

fatal variance ex

is ted between his i

ndictmen t and the proo f of

fered at trial ; (9) defe

nse couns el
wasi ne f f ecti ve ; a nd ( 10) s tatem

en ts m ade d uri ng th e State’ s cl

osi ng a rgum en t were i m proper. Fo rt he r ea so ns d isc us se d a t len gt h be lo w, we r ev er se an d r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. I. BACKG

ROUND Edy s R i ve ra te sti f i ed tha t when sh e m arr i ed de f en da nt i n 1 993 , sh

e al rea dy ha d atwoyea r-ol d da ugh ter, J.M . De f

en da nt h ad two other d

augh ters , Evel y n a nd Ma ria, f rom a p rior relationshi

p who would v

is it eve ry other weeken

d. Mrs. Riv

era and def

endan t had a son toget her and, along wit h J.M ., t hey lived in thr ee d iff er ent t ow ns in the wes t subu rbs o f Chicago . D ur ing thi s p eri od, she work ed asa re ce ptioni st f rom 8:3 0 a .m . to 5 p .m . ev

ery we ekda y an d 8 a .m . to 6 p.m . e v er y oth er Sa turda y , w h i l e def en da n t wa s a com pu ter tech n i ci an an d w orked f rom 4 a .m . to 12 p.m duri ng th e wee k. I n t he fall o f 20 04 , E ve lyn ca me t o live w it h he rfat he ran d h is “s ec o nd ” fa mily. S ho r t ly thereafter, on October 22, 2004, Mrs. Rivera was driv in g home from work when sh

e recei ved a phone cal l f rom the Fran kl i n P ark pol i ce . Sh e w as tol d that her two da

ugh ters were a t the sta ti on and M rs. Rivera was t old t o g o t o t he po lice st at ion alo ne. She immediat ely phone d her husba nd at that t im

e to inf orm hi m of the si tuation. Af

ter arrivi ng at the poli

ce station, Mrs. Ri

vera was informed of a po lice invest igat ion which invo lved allega t ions o f a sexu al nat ur e bet wee n defend ant and he r 1 3- year- old dau ght er , J. M. S he signe d a c ons ent for m per mitt ing t he po lice to sea rc h t he f am i l y apartm en t. Mrs. Ri vera accom

pani ed the poli

ce to t he apartme

nt for the search a

nd, upon enteri

ng, she n ot ic ed a burni

ng sm ell i n the ki tchen an d “b urned stuff

” i n the si nk, even though the si

nk was1-09-2472

3

in normal condi tion i n the m ornin g. She al so noticed that the li vi ng room computer, which was assembled and “

in work in g or der” in the m

orning, was on the floo r and disassem bled. Mrs. Rivera admit t ed t hat she o nly occa siona lly use d t he co mput er and o nly defendant knew t he password to access the computer . During the search, t he poli ce recovered , among ot her things, pa r t s o f aco mp ut er , a c amc o r de r , a c ame r a, an d v ar io us di gi t al s t o r ag e me di a. La t er t ha t da y, condoms were recovered f rom def endan t’s ja cket pocket . She testif

ie d that defenda

nt had n ever used condoms

in their i ntim ate relations

hi p. Defendan t’s step daughter, J.M., t estifi ed that she was born on Octo ber 21, 1990 . J.M. sta ted th at i n th e s pri n g of 20 02 , w h en sh e w as 12 , s h e h ad se v eral un usual con v er sa ti on s wi th de fen da nt in his r o o m wh ile he rmo t he rwa s a t wo rk. Du r ing t he se co nve r sa t io ns, de fen da nt t o ld J.M . t hat he co uld help he r st ar t a mod eling car eer and fo rm a band wit h his dau ght er s and
an othe r da ugh ter of a f rien d. H e s ai d J .M woul

d m ake “ a l ot of mone y .” D ef en da nt tol d J .M. not to tell her m ot her bec ause he wanted to “surprise h er.” Defen

dant al so to ld J .M. that he sign ed a mod eling co nt ra ct for her and t hat an individual named Cindy wo uld ar ra nge fo r p hot o s hoo t s and ge t J. M. clo t hing
. Ap pa r en t ly t o t ha t en d, de fen da nt t o o k s ev er al me as ur eme nt s o f J. M. in his
room. Af

ter several

conversations, defen

dant even tuall y pe rsuaded J.M. that, as a part o f h er contract, she n

eeded to t est condoms an d some l ot ion. J.M. i

ndicated that t he l

ot ion was i

ntended to be put on her body

and def endan t would li ck i t o ff . As f or t he condoms, defen

dant would put one on and J.M. wo uld perform oral sex on him . Although J.M. did not want to test the pro ducts, defendan t t old her it was necessary in ord er to laun

ch her m odelin g and musi

c career. J.M.1-09-2472

4

t est ifi ed t hat she t old defend ant she d id no t want t o t est t he lot ions be cau se she did no t want defend ant t ou ching her , bu t wo uld t est t he co ndo ms if she had t o. As a d emons t ra t ion, defend ant retrieved a pl

astic grocery

bag, put it over his penis, and told J.M., “W hat y ou do now is the exact sa me th i n g y ou’ regoi n g to d o wh en we h av e th e c on dom on .”De f en da n t i n str uc ted J. M. to kneel an d to put her mout h on hi s peni s and “m ove [her] head backward and forwa rd.” J. M.
co mplied and d efenda nt co nt inued t o inst ru ct her . Aft er app ro ximately 10 minut es, defend ant rem oved the b ag an

d J.M . l ef t the room
. J.M. t estifi

ed that although she was di sgusted, she f elt she did not have a choice because her career depen

ded on i t. The next day , J.M. was in defen dant’s room agai

n an d was told to do the same thi

ng she di d before with the grocer y b ag and she compl ied. Af ter t hat day, J.M. tes ti f i ed tha t de f en da nt woul d have h er p erf orm oral sex on hi m wh i l e h e w ore a con dom onc e or twice a week. J.M. di

d not inf orm her m

ot her bec ause def

endan t t old he r that if she ev er to ld h er m other, she would di sown

J.M. a nd s he would be place d i nto f oster ca re. In the sum

me r of 2003, J.M. and he

r fam il y were in the process of m

ovin g to Hil ls ide , Il l i n oi s. J. M. an

d def en da n t con ti n ue d to h av e c on v er sa ti on s a b out m ode l i n g a n d h er b an d, w i th defen dant stating that they

jus t had to give i

t t im e. At one point, J.M. was told by her m ot her that if she conti nued to mi sbeh

ave at sch ool and i n the h ouse, J.M. would be sen

t t o “boot camp.” Defend ant late r t oo k J. M. t o s ee t heir new hou se a t Hillsi de. Once t her e, he t old J.M . t hat if she did no t wa nt t o go t o bo o t ca mp, she co uld pe r fo rm o r al s ex o n him a t t ha t t ime a nd he wo uld late r t alk t o he r mo t her . D efenda nt dr ove t o a near by dru g st or e and pur chas ed c ond oms, and t he two wen t in to the basem

en t of the Hil l si de h ouse w here J.M . perf

orme d oral

sex on de f endan t.1-09-2472

5

Af ter movi ng to Hil ls ide , J.M. would perform oral sex on defen dant throughout the sum

me r ac cordi n g to def en da n t’s re qu ests. J. M. testi f

i ed th at th e f re qu en cy of th e acts v ari ed f rom on e to three tim es a week, depe

ndi ng on wh ethe r he r brother or m

other was home

and def endan t’s w ork schedul e. Defen dant’s adv

ances a ls o changed duri

ng thi s tim

e, as he b egan perf

ormi ng oral s ex on J .M. , touchi

ng an d l i ck i ng he r breasts , re cord

i ng vi de os of the ac ts, as w el

l astaki ng photos of J.M. u nc l othed. On one occ asi

on i n the su m mer of 2003, d ef endan t in i tia ted v agi na l i nterc ourse wi

th J.M ., wit h t he pe ne t r at io n la st ing a minu t e a nd he rsc r ea ming in p ain
. De fen da nt t he n a ba nd o ne d h is at t empt and mad e J. M. p er for m or al sex o n him i nst ead . I n July 200 3, J.M . t old defend ant she
was “sick and t ired of e ver ything” a nd she was “not go ing t o d o a nything anymo re .” Defend ant t he n info rmed J. M. t ha t Cind y wa s g o ing t o su e J . M. an d h er mo t he rfo r$2 00 , 00 0. J. M. t o ld de fen da nt t ha t she “w o uld r at he rbe t o uc he d b y a g irl, ” a nd in r es po nse , de fen da nt t o ld h er t ha t if she coul d fi nd an ot her gi rl to make a v

ide o with, he would “l

et [J.M] o ff

the hook for a goo d two weeks.” J.M. spoke to a close fri end, J.T., and told her sh

e needed h

el p. Af ter hearin g an expl anati on of the si

tuation, J.T. agreed t o hel p but to ld J .M., “ma

ke sure he doesn ’t talk to me, mak e s ur e h e d o es n’t t o uc h me
. ” J
. M. t he n t es t ified as t o o ne dis t inc t o cc as io n w he n J. T . ca me over, w here def endan t had J.M. a nd J .T. perf

orm ora l sex on de f endan t and how the acts were re co rd ed w ith a c amco rd er . J. M. c ou ld no t re member if sexua l act s o ccu rr ed o n ot her oc cas ions that J.T. visi

ted. Once J.M . st ar t ed s event h gr ade , she st at ed t hat t he se xual ac t s had increa sed up t o five tim es a week. Def

endan t would have J.M. fee d her brother and put hi m i n hi s room, after whi

ch1-09-2472

6

J. M. wou l d p er f orm sex ual acts f or d ef en da n t. J .M . te sti

f i ed sh e c on ti n ue d to p erf

orm sex ual acts because defen dant in form ed her that if

she sto pped, Cin

dy would contin

ue to sue J.M. and her mother. Af

ter seventh grade, J.M an d her f am il y m oved to Frankli

n Park. Def

endan t continued to have J.M. perform

oral sex on hi m a pproxim ately three or four t im

es a week, tell

in g J.M. that Ci ndy wasrequi

ri ng J .M. to do so to “pa

y off what y ou owe [Ci

ndy ].” A t the Fran kli n Pa rk residence, d efendant wo uld use a webcam to make reco rdings of the se xual acts t o, under J. M.’s b el i ef , s en d to C i n dy . J .M . te sti

f i ed th at on on e oc ca si

on , w h en sh e w as un wi l l i n g to a cc ede to defend ant ’s de mand fo r o ra l sex, s he wa s t old t o s pea k t o a wo man on t he pho ne who m defenda nt said was Ci

ndy . “Ci ndy ” told J.M., “lis

ten to your stepfather, he i s a good man, j ust listen to what he say s and do what he i

s tell in g you to do .” As J.M. started eigh

th grade, she attempted to st ay away from her house as

muc h as possible but defen dant stil l h ad J.M. perform

sexual acts approxim

ately every ot her Saturday whi le her m ot her was at work. On October 11, 2004, defendan t t old J.M. i

t was tim e to make
another v i deo, but J.M. re f

use d. Shortly

there af ter, J.M . and def

endan t had a con versati on wh ere he t hre at ened a co nfro nt at ion wit h Cindy the follow ing Frida y, Oc t obe r 2 2, 200 4. Defend ant stated t hat Ci

ndy would be at the residen

ce when J.M. returned from s chool an d warned her that sh e w as“ screwed

ove r now.” Th at s am

e day , J. M. w rote a note to a f rien d re l ati ng he r f ea rs of b ei n g sue d, wan

ti n g a n oth er ch an ce , a n d w an ti n g to r un aw ay. L ate

r that day , J .M . tal ke d w i th Ros an n e Z uc ca ro, th e s ub sti tute soc i al wor ker, a n d tol d h er wh at h ad b een h appen i n g wi th defen dant, which l

ed school of

fi ci al s to co ntact the local

police. J.M .’ s f rien d, J .T., te sti

f i ed tha t sh e w asbor n on Ma y 6, 1 990 . Du

ri ng the su m mer of1-09-2472

7

200 3, J.T . t est ifi

ed t hat she sp ok e t o he r friend near ly every day o n t he pho ne. Dur ing o ne pho ne conversation, J.M. asked her f or help b ecause “ she h

ad to do some m

odeli ng an d her step-dad
wasthe on

e doi ng i t and she neede d he l

p i n orde r to get out of i

t,” bu t was othe

rwi se n ot speci f i c. No t long t her eaft er , o n a su mmer aft er noo n, J. T. was visiting J. M. a t her hou se w hen de fendant
ca l l ed h i s step -d augh

ter to th e b as em

en t. Af ter 30to 45 m

i n ute s, J. T. w en

t to the b as em

en t to loo k fo r he r. J.M . r an up t o J .T ., t old her t o r elax and t hen blindfolde d her . J. M. t oo k her hand and pl aced i t o n def endan t’s penis and told h

er to giv e defe ndan t o ral s ex, whi

ch sh e di d. J.T. was
ev en t ua lly t o ld t o st o p b y J. M. , an d h er blind fo ld w as t ak en o ff. De fen da nt t o ld J
. T . no t t o t ell
an y on e b ec au se

h e h ad h er pa re n ts’ “ ac cou

n t n um b er s, ” a n d th at i f sh e tol d a n y on e, h er pa re n ts wo uld no t be able t o bu y a hou se a nd he w ou ld t ake her awa y from her par ent s. J .T . t est ifi ed s he vi si ted three more tim

es over that summ

er, and def

endan t had her an

d J.M. perform v

arious
sexu al act s. S he st at ed t hat she d id no t t ell anyone be cau se she was sca re d her par ent s wo uld be taken away

from her and tha

t her parents would l

ose their h

ouse. J.T. and J.M. did n ot see each other an y m ore af ter the l ast i nc i den t, al though they spoke occas i onal

l y over th e ph one. J .T. furt her t est ifi

ed t hat she d id no t t ell anyone w hat had ha ppe ned u nt il she was c ont act ed by t he Frankl in Park police i

n October 2004. Ros ea nn e Z uc ca ro testi f i ed tha t on O ctob er 2 2, 2 004 , sh e w asa te ache

r at H es ter J

un i or High Schoo l i

n Frankli n Park. On that day, Zuccar o wa s checking her mai lbox i n the scho ol’s off i ce a t around 2:30 p .m . wh en

she was ask ed to f i l l i n f or the s chool’ s soc i al

worker. Z

ucca ro entered the social

worker’s offi

ce and sa w that J.M. was upset. After bei ng asked wh

at was wr ong , J. M. s aid t hat she ha d made movies invo lving sexua l act s wit h her st epfat her and t hat she1-09-2472

8

did not wa

nt to make th

e m ovies a ny m ore. Zuc caro an

d J.M . di scu sse d the

si tuati on un

til 3 p.m ., when she told J.M. i

t was okay to go to voll

ey bal l practice. Unsure as to her responsi bi li ties si nce she w as filli

ng in for t he so cial wo rk er , Zu cca ro spo ke t o t he as sist ant pr incipal, p ro mpt ing notif ic ation of the l

ocal polic e departmen

t and the retrieval

of J.M. f rom volle yb all practice. Detective Vi

to Busse testif

ie d that on Octo ber 22, 2004, he was worki ng as an evi dence tec hnician i

n the investigation for the unde rlyi ng case. H e te stified t hat up on ent ering defendant’s resi dence, he saw a di sassem bled computer on the fl

oor that was missi

ng a h ard driv e. He recovered a num

ber of i tems f rom the residence, i

ncl udin g a compact di sc label

ed “Jose’ s Stuff

,” a digi tal cam era, a camc order, various computer dis ks and com

ponents, and a f

ew vi deotapes whic

h Detect iv e Busse later learned contained recordings of vari ous fami ly events. Dete ctive Busse also testifi ed that it appeared somethi ng ha d been burnt i n the ki tchen si nk. He al so observed bl

ack mat er ial, simila rt o wh at wa s in t he kit ch en sink , o n a t o ilet se at an d a ne ar by p inkt o we l. Bra d Giglio t est ifi

ed t hat in Oct obe r 2 004 , he was an as sist ant St at e’s At t or ney (AS A) assigne d t o t he child exp loit at ion u nit. He int er viewed bot h J.M . a nd J. T. at sep ar at e t imes, and subse quently

me t with def endan t. During a m

eetin g at around 9 p.m. on October 23, 2004, defen dant was read hi

s righ ts and si gned a Miranda wai

ver f orm. He asked Gi

gli o for guarantees that he would n

ot go t o “j ai l”

if he deci ded to t al k about what happened. Gi gli o responded that he coul d n ot gi ve a g ua ran teebe ca us e h e di d n ot wa nt d ef en da nt’ s state men

ts to b e c oerc ed

or ot herwi se bas ed on some s ort of promi se, resul ting i n def endan t t ermi natin g the in terview. Det ect ive Michael Jo nes t est ifi ed t hat on O ct obe r 2 2, 200 4, he wa s ass igned t o t he in vestigation of the un

derly in g case. At around 4:30 p.m. an d 5 p.m., J.M. and h

er mother1-09-2472

9

r es pe ct ive ly ar r ive d a t t he st at io n. De fe nd an t ar r ive d a t 6 p
. m. , sw ea t ing an d b r ea t hin g h ea vily,
an d w as tak en to an i n ter v i ew room. D ef

en da n t wa s read h

i s r i gh ts a n d agr ee d to s

pe ak wi th Detec tiv e Jon es. Duri ng th i s ti me, Dete cti

ve Jone s al so learn ed of the s econ

d al l eged vi cti m , J.T., and at approxim

ately 2:40 a.m. on October 23, 2004, Detect iv e Jones stated to defen

dant that “his tr ou bles had just go t t en bigge r. ” De fendant ask ed D et ect ive Jo nes w hat gua ra nt ees co uld be made if he ga ve a c onfe ssio n. D et ect ive Jo nes st at ed he co uld no t make a ny pro mises and defend ant re spo nded he wo uld g ive a co nfessio n but need ed a not her glass o f wat er . R ight ar ou nd this tim e, an atto rney, Mich

ael Cl ancy , appeared at the stat ion a nd m et with def

endan t who sign

ed a f orm i ndi cati ng th at he would not sp eak w

i th the pol i ce. Som

e 18 h ours l ater, at aroun

d 9 p.m., Jo ne s s aid t ha t de fen da nt ag ain ind ica t ed he wo uld giv e a co nfe ss io n if he wa s g ua r an t ee d n o jail tim e. Dete cti

ve Jone s wa s wi

th Gi gli o and testi f i ed s i m i l arl y to the even

ts that Gi gli o descri

be d. Jo hn Gr iff

in, Jr ., also t est ifi

ed fo r t he St at e. He s t at ed t hat he wa s an invest igat or for t he Stat e’s A tt orney’ s off

ic e i n Cook County f

or 13 years as of

the tim e of thi s particul

ar in vestigation. At the tim

e of trial, he worked for the Secret Service of the Uni ted St ates. He testifi ed he h ad been em ploy ed i n com puter analy

si s work for approxim

ately fi ve y ears and h

ad
ex pe r ien ce ex aminin g c o mpu t er s a nd co mpu t er co mpo ne nt s in a va r iet y o f ca se s, inc lud ing ch ild pornography, com

puter hackin

g, credit card fraud, an

d ban k fraud. He also test if

ie d that he has
exam in ed at least 100,000 f

il es or vi deo cli

ps of ch il d pornography. The tri al

court decl ared Grif fi n to be an ex

pert in the area of

computer forensi

c anal ys is . Grif fi n testif ie d that he was
as ke d t o an alyz e a co mpa ct dis c la be led “Jo se ’s St uff, ” a nd t wo int er na l ha r d d r ive s fo rch ild pornography. He testif

ie d that t he two hard driv es contain ed vari ous documents an

d several1-09-2472

10

pornographic i

ma ges; h owever, the im

ages were of adul

ts. On the compact di sc, Grif fi n testif ie d that it containe d various videos, im ages, m usic, and docume

nts. He testif

ie d that one fi

le d was
nam ed, “13-y ear-old gi ve h ead,” whi ch caugh t his attention. He off

ered hi s opin

ion that the vi

deo
con tai n ed a “ youn g adol es cen t perf orm i n g f el l ati o on a m al e s ub j ect” a n d th at th e m al e “l ooke d to be ol der than he

r.” He als o opined that the fem al e was “ sm

all i n stature” with “

underdeve loped bre asts,” and be l i ev ed the i

ndi vi dual i n the vi deo was

“a j uve ni l e”. On be ha l f of de f en da nt, Dora Hernan de z te sti f i ed f i rs t. Sh e s tate d s he

wa s th e m othe r of defen dant’s two daughters. She testif ie d that defenda

nt, pursuant to a court o rder, would pic k up his da ugh ters ev ery Saturda y at noon and br i ng th em to back to Herna ndez on Su

nda y ev en i ngs . She ack n owl ed ge d th at th ere w ere s om

e S atu rd ay s w h en h e d i d n ot pi ck th em up , us ual l y du e to a s pe cia l o cc as io n. Sh e a lso st at ed de fen da nt wa s a “w o nd er ful fa t he r . ” B o t h E ve lyn an d M ar ia testifi ed as wel l. The y s tated t hat they

would vi si t defenda nt on the weekends

and that they

never saw o r heard about anythin g inappro priate occ urr ing between defendant a nd J.M. Defendant’s mot her , R amona LaCo ur t , t est ifi ed t hat she w ou ld see her gr andc hildren r egu larly on t he weekends and J.M. never complai ned about defendant. Defendant’s aunt, J. J. LaCour t-G rant also testi f i ed th at sh e s aw

J. M. re gul arl

y an d th at sh e n ev er com pl ai n ed ab out def

en da n t. Defe ndan t t estif ie d on hi s own beh

al f. He testif

ie d that he worked for a technological
co mpany wher e he s er ved a s a su per visor in a dep ar t ment t hat dea lt w ith cir cuit boa rd s. T he da ugh ters he ha d w i th D ora H ern

an de z w oul d v i si t every Satu rda y an d Su nd ay he wa s n ot working. He testif

ie d he onl y s aw J.T. once or t wic e when he l iv ed i n Berwy n. Wh en l iv in g at Berwy n, def endan t buil t t wo computers for the household, but one of the computers broke af ter1-09-2472

11

the fam il y m oved to Hill

side. Whe

n at Hi ll side, defen

dant testif ie d that he and Mrs. Ri

vera be gan to have personal

and f in anci al problem s, and were discussi

ng getting di

vorced. At that t im

e, def endan t was s eei ng a n i ndi vi dual na med Ci ndy
. Defe ndan t and Mrs. Ri

vera sold their Hi

ll side house due to t hei

r personal a

nd f in anci al pr o ble ms a nd mo ve d t o Fr an klin Pa rk in an effo rt t o r ek ind le t he ir r ela t io nsh ip. While living in Fr an kl i n Pa rk , on Oc tob er 20 , 20 04 , de f

en da n t testi f i ed th at h e b rough t Evel y n to hi s h ous e to have he r live wit h him becaus e her gr ade s we re dec lini ng and he believed a cha nge o f enviro nment co uld be be neficial. De fendant t est ifi ed t hat Mrs . R ivera w as u nhapp y with t he sit uat ion and t he two fought, and so Evely

n stay ed wi th hi s aunt that night. On October 21, defen dant regis tered Evel yn in the local school an

d drove her to school the nex t day, the day

defen dant was al so call

ed to th e Fra n kl i n Pa rk pol i ce de pa rtm en t. De f en da n t sp ec i f i ca l l y den i ed al l of th e te sti mon y of th e two gi

rls a b out th e s ex ual acts that were related i

n the State’s case-i

n-chi ef. He al so denied the rather in

volv ed testim ony a bout the mus ic al

group, lotion and condom testing, and the

pot entia l m odeli ng career f

or his stepdau ght er . D efenda nt furt her denied ask ing for gua ra nt ees re gar ding p ro bat ion and impriso nment from then-ASA

Gigl io or Detective Jones . He expl ai ned that the computer in

Frankl in Park was dis assem bled becaus e he was

attempting to replace

the hard dri

ve. Def endan t also expl

ai ned that the burni ng sm ell i n the ki tchen, as wel

l as the ash

es i n the si nk an d on a towel, were from

an at t emp t t o ligh t a c an dle in t he be dr o o m t o cr ea t e a r o man t ic a t mo sp he r e fo rhis w ife. He ha d lit a piec e o f pap er and w alked t ow ar d t he bed ro om, but befo re being able t o light t he ca ndle, he tur ned around back t o t he ki tchen and threw t he burni ng paper into t he si

nk. On cross-1-09-2472

12

exam in ation, however, def

endan t stat ed he succ essf

ull y l it the can dle
. Defe ndan t was found gui

lty by the jury of three counts of predatory cri mi nal sexual assaul t, t hree counts of cri

mi nal sexual assaul t, fiv e counts of aggravated cri mi nal sexual abuse, and one count of chi

ld pornogra phy . The t rial cour t sentenced defendant to 75 years’ im prisonm ent. This tim el y a ppeal followed. II. AN AL YSIS A. Mot ion to Su ppress De f en da n t con ten dsth at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n den y i n g h i s m oti on to s uppr es s state

men ts he made to the p ol i ce . In

rev i ew i ng a m oti on to s uppres s, th

i s c ourt is pres en

ted wi th q ue sti ons of l aw an d f act. People v. Terry , 37 9 I l l . A pp . 3d 28 8, 2 92 (2 00 8) . We g i

v e g re at def eren ce to fact ual findings by t he t rial co ur t and w ill only re ver se su ch findings if the y are a gainst t he
man i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. People v. Cosby , 231 Il l . 2d 262 , 270-7 1 (200 8). We, however, re v i ew th e tr i al cou rt' s l eg al deter m i n ati on of wh eth er su pp re ss i on i s war ra n ted un der th ose f acts de novo
. Terry , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 292. Defend ant fil

ed a mot ion t o s upp re ss which a lleged t hat : ( 1) defend ant was ar re st ed by t he Frankl in Park police departmen

t; (2) defen

dant was sub sequentl

y que stioned; (3) att orney Mic hael Cl ancy me t with def endan t; (4) defen

dant, in the presence of

Cl ancy and Detectiv

e Jones, asse

rted hi s right to remai

n si len t; (5) defendan

t signed a written assert ion of hi s Miranda right s in the pr ese nce o f Clancy and D et ect ive Jo nes; a nd ( 6) defend ant was subs equ ent ly quest ioned and mad e s t at eme nt s in vio lat io n o f Edwar ds v. Arizona , 451 U .S. 477 (1 981). Evide nce p re sent ed a t t he hea ring o n t he mot ion t o s upp re ss r evea led t he fo llowing1-09-2472

13

sequence of even ts: Detect iv

e Jones an

d Deputy Ch

ie f Jack Krecker m

et with def

endan t at 6: 06 p.m. on Oct ober 22, 2004. Defendant was read his Miranda right s, w hich defend ant indicat ed he understood. He wai

ved h is righ ts thro ugh a si

gned an d in itial ed form

and sub sequentl

y e ngaged i n a nu m be r of con ve rs ati ons . Cl an cy rec ei ve d a cal l at 1 :30 a.m. on Oc tobe r 23 , 20 04, f

rom defen dant’s un cl e and was

subse quently

retained b

y h im on beh al f of defen dant. Clan

cy arriv ed at the F ran kli n Pa rk pol i ce de partm en t at 3:15 a .m , and m

et wi th de f endan t shortl y there af ter. Defendan t discussed hi s Miranda righ ts wi th C l an cy an d i ni ti al ed an d s i gned a w ri tten as sertion of hi s Miranda r igh t s. Cla nc y left t he po lice de pa rt men t at 3: 34 a. m. At 5:15 p.m., Detective Page entered the l ockup area of the poli ce departmen

t t o t ake a photo of def

endan t for use in

a photo arr ay . Detective Page di d not speak to defen

dant, but de fe nd an t di d a sk if D et ec t ive Jo ne s w as in t he st at io n. De t ec t ive P ag e a ns we r ed af fir mat ive ly, and d efenda nt ask ed if he co uld sp eak t o D et ect ive Jo nes. Det ect ive Pag e sa id, “o kay” a nd relay ed the i nf ormation to Detective Jones . At 9:14 p.m., Detective Jones and A SA Gi

gli o met wit h defend ant . D et ect ive Jo nes a ske d de fendant if he want ed t o s pea k t o t hem and d efenda nt answered aff

irm ativel y. Def endant was again read his Miranda righ ts, which he wai ved,
me mori aliz ed by

a si gned an d in itial ed wai

ver f orm. Gigl

io asked def

endan t if he h ad m et with an at t or ney, a nd de fendant answ er ed yes . G iglio also ask ed d efenda nt if he was se lf-initiat ing t he inst an t co nve r sa t io n, an d d efe nd an t sa id ye s. De fen da nt sp o ke t o De t ec t ive Jo ne s a nd Gig lio un t il
aroun d 9 :4 3 p .m ., a

t wh i ch poi n t de f en da n t re qu ested

to ca l l h i s a ttorn ey. D ef en da n t wa s a b l e to re ach his au nt and mo t her , bu t was unable t o r eac h Clancy, a nd wa s t hen r et ur ned t o his c ell by t he po lice witho ut furt her co nver sat ion. At 1 0: 55 p .m. , C lancy ret ur ned t o t he po lice st at ion and1-09-2472

14

al though defen

dant deni ed speaki ng to t he polic e, Cla

ncy advi sed def

endan t t o not speak and the

n reinv oked de fen

dant’s Miranda ri

gh ts. De f en da n t ar gu es th at h e d i d n ot re i n i ti ate con tact wi th t he po lice pr ior t o t he eve ning co nver sat ion o ccu rr ing o n Oct obe r 2 3, 200 4, but t hat inste ad t he pol i ce di d when Detectiv e Pag e en tered h i s ce l l to take a ph

otograph. Edwar ds he ld t ha t a d efe nd an t , “ha ving ex pr es se d h is d es ire t o de al w it h t he po lice o nly through counsel , is n

ot subj ect to further i

nterrogat ion b

y the authorities

until counsel has b een made a va i l ab l e to h i m , un l es s th e accus ed hi m se l f i ni ti ate s f urth er c om m un i ca ti on, exch an ge s, or conversations wi

th the police.” Edwar

ds , 451 U.S. at 484-85. Whether a def endan t reini tiates
con tact i s s ub j ect to a d

oub l e- pronge d i

n qui ry . F i rs t, w e m ust deter m i n e w h eth er th e def en da n t, rathe r than the p oli ce, i ni tia ted the conv ersa tion i n a man ner evi nc i ng a “wi l l i ngn ess and a de si

re for a general

iz ed di scussi

on about the in

vestigation.” Oregon v. Bradshaw , 462 U.S. 1039, 10 45
- 46 ( 19 83 )
. I f it is d et er mined t ha t t he de fen da nt did r ein it iat e c o nt ac t , t he ne xt inq uir y is whether th

e def en da nt, by hi s or he r i ni ti ati on of such a c onv ers ati on, cou pled wi th th e total i ty of the other circum

stances, knowi

ngl y a nd i ntell ige ntly wai ved h is righ t t o t he presen

ce of counsel
and hi s ri ght to rem

ai n s i l en t duri ng c ustodial i nterroga tion
. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1046. De f en da nt p oi nts sol el y to People v. Oli vera , 16 4 I ll. 2 d 3 82 ( 19 95 ) , in su pp o rt o f his argum en t that he did not rei

ni tia te contact wi

th the pol i ce. Olivera , ho we ve r , is r ea dily dist inguishable. In Olivera , the def endan t, af ter partici pati ng i n a l i ne up, asked a

detecti ve , “ ‘what happe

ned[?]’ ” Olivera , 164 Ill . 2d at 387. T he detectiv e responded that the defen dant was “ ‘posi tivel y i dentif ie d.’ ” Id . Th

e dete cti v e te sti f i ed th e def en da n t “‘s tate d th at h e w an ted to kn o w w ha t happ en s ne xt . I t o ld h im I w an t ed t o ad vise him o f his r igh t s, an d I ad vise d h im o f his1-09-2472

15

righ ts at t hat tim

e.’ ” Id . Defen

dant subse quently

gave a statem

ent. Our supreme court noted tha t the de f en da nt’ s i ni ti al que sti on of “what happene d”wa s i

ns uf f i ci en t to es tab l i sh , on defend ant 's pa rt , “a willi

ngnes s and a de sire fo r a gene ra lized disc uss ion co ncer ning t he i nv esti gation,” f ail i ng to sa tis f y the f i rst prong of

the a na l y si s. Olivera , 164 Il

l . 2d at 39 0-91. Fur t her mor e, t he de t ect ive’s r esp ons e t hat t he de fendant had be en po sitively ident ifi ed w as “o ne that could and di

d elic it f urther comm

ent by the defe ndan t.” Id. at 391. The excha nge be t wee n Det ect ive Pag e and defend ant was in a ent irely different co nt ext t han t he o ne in Olivera . Defen dant’s f irst statemen

t t o Detect iv

e Page, without any

promptin g, was whethe

r Detective Jones

was stil l i n the station. Upon di scoveri ng that Detective Jone s was st ill pr es en t , de fen da nt r eq ue st ed t o sp ea k w it h D et ec t ive Jo ne s. Fr o m t his s imple ex ch an ge , it is apparent that defen

dant uni la terall y e vi denced a wi

ll in gness and a desi

re for a general

ized discu ssio n co ncer ning t he invest igat ion. In Olivera , howeve r, the def en da nt wassu bj ec t to a lineup, aft er which he a ske d wha t had ha ppe ned. The re is no indica t ion t he de fendant in Olivera ha d a ny init ial d es ire t o ac t ua lly sp ea k w it h t he po lice r eg ar din g t he inve st iga t io n u nt il i m medi atel y af ter the d etecti ve i ndi cated to the

def endan t that he had be en posi tiv el y i den tif i ed. Had t he de t ect ive in Olivera ind ica t ed t o t he de fen da nt wa s no t ide nt ified , o ne co uld r ea so na bly bel ie ve that the def

endan t’s subse quent response would be considerabl y di ff erent. Here, De tec ti ve Pag e’ s c om

men ts w ere ne utra l i n c ha rac ter, i n th at they onl y con f i rm ed the pre senc e of
an ind ividua l t ha t de fen da nt alr ea dy w ishe d t o sp ea k t o , as o pp o se d t o a c o mment impu t ing gu ilt upo n defend ant , a s wa s t he ca se in Olivera . We also note t hat defe ndan t expli ci tly acknowledged that he was self-i

nitiating the conver sation wit h Dete ctive Jones. Accor dingl y, the t rial court ’s1-09-2472

16

det er minatio n t hat defend ant re initiat ed c ont act was not aga inst t he manifest weight of t he
evi den ce. Having c onfirmed t hat defend ant re initiat ed c ont act wit h t he po lice, w e must det er mine wh et he rde fen da nt kn o win gly a nd int ellig en t ly wa ive d h is r igh t t o t he pr es en ce o f co un se l an d h is
r igh t t o r ema in sile nt du r ing cu st o dia l int er r o ga t io n. Giv en t he t o t alit y o f t he cir cu mst an ce s, t his
co ur t find s t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t er mina t io n t ha t de fe nd an t ’s wa ive rwa s ma de kn o win gl y, in telli gently, and voluntaril

y. Def endant had been ex

plai ned his Miranda r igh t s o n mu lt iple
occ as i on s i

n wri tten an d oral f orm , i n cl udi n g th rough a c on v er sa ti on wi th h i s a ttorn ey. Pr i or to the reini tiated co nversation wi

th Det ective Jones, defendan t was rer ead his Miranda right s and ask ed if he und er st oo d t he r ight s, a nd he s igned a nd initialed a wr itt en wa iver fo rm. D efenda nt wa s a lso as ke d by G iglio whe t her de fend ant had met wit h his a t t o rn ey a nd w as nev er t hele ss se lfinitiat ing t he co nver sat ion, t o w hich defend ant re spo nded affirmatively. Fu rt her mor e, defend ant has a n asso ciat e’s d egr ee in a t echno log ical field, t her efo re cr eat ing litt le, if any, d ou bt t hat he unde rst oo d his rig ht s. F inally , it is clear defend ant unde rst oo d he w as fre e t o t er minate t he
con v er sa ti on at a n y poi n t, a s i t ap pe ar s h e h i m se l f ter m i n ate d th e c on v er sa ti on an d r eq ue ste d to sp ea k t o his a t t o rne y. A ft er o ur o wn r ev iew o f t he r ec o r d, we findt ha t t he mo t io n t o su pp r es s, in the context that it was argued, was properly deni ed. A s a n a dj un ct to th i s c onte nti on, de f en da nt a l so a rguestha t he wa s den i ed hi s ri gh t to a fai r tr ial when the trial court allowed test im ony that t he conversations were “termin ated, ” because they constituted

i m proper c omm

en ts on de f endan t’s postarrest s i l ence un

der Doyle v

. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 (1976 ). Doyle

hel d the Stat e's us e of a def

endan t's sile nce, at the tim

e of arrest and af

ter1-09-2472

17

recei vi ng Miranda war nings, for impeachment pur po ses vio late d t he du e pr oc ess c lause of t he f ourteen th am endm en t. Id. at 619. As a threshold ma tt er, we note t hat defe

ndan t never obj ected to an y com men ts or q ue sti ons at tri al rel ati ng to the term i na ti on of the con ve rs ati ons an d di d n ot include t he issue in his pos t t rial mot ion. Defend ant , ho weve r, ur ges us t o e xamine this u nder t he pla in error do ctrine. Unde r t he plain er ro r d oc t rine, we w ill re view unp re ser ved e rr or when e ither (1 ) t he evidence is

closel y b alan ced, regar dless of the seriousness of the erro r; or ( 2) t he error is seri ous, regar dless of the cl osen ess of the ev i den ce. People v. Herron , 215 Il l . 2d 167 , 186-8 7 (200 5). The f i rst step of plai n error anal

y si s i s de cidi

ng w hether a ny error has occ

urred. People v. Walker, 2 32 I ll. 2d 1 13, 124 -2 5 ( 200 9) . I f an er ro r is de emed t o ha ve o ccu rr ed, we t ur n t o t he prong s of the p l ai n error anal

y si s. Defendant po ints to a number of references co ncerning the alleged mi suse o f defendant’s po st ar re st silence. On a va riet y of o cca sions dur ing t heir r esp ect ive te st imonies, Giglio and De t ec t ive Jo ne s no t ed t ha t de fen da nt “t er minat ed ” a n int er vie w. De fen da nt cla ims t ha t it “c o uld not have be en los t on t he jur y after re pea t ed r efer ence s t hat Defend ant t er minated t he i n ter rog ati on th at h e h ad i n v oke d h i s r i gh t to s i l en ce .”W h il e w e a gr ee th at i t i s g en eral l y er ror t o com m en t on a de f en da nt' s p osta rre st s i l en ce , “ ‘[ i ]t i s n ot err or to el i ci t a c om pleterec i tation of po lice pr o ce du r e, ev en if t he r ec it at io n inc lud es r efe r en ce t o a d efe nd an t 's e xe r cis e o f his constitutional

righ ts, so long as the reci

tation is not argued t o be i

ndicative of gui

lt.’ ” People v. Leak, 398 Ill . App. 3d 798, 820 (2010) (quo ting People v. Lindgren , 111 Ill . App. 3d 112, 117 (1982)). First, there were no comm ents that defen

dant expl ic itl y e xerci sed any

constitutional1-09-2472

18

righ ts. Whi le certain w itnes ses di

d in dic ate that so me

in terviews were “termi

nated,” it onl

y s erved to estab l i sh

a ti mel i ne of e vents f or the s ake of

clari ty as oppose d to any

sugg esti on of gui l t. More im port antly , the Stat e nev

er argued or inti

ma ted that t he “

termi nation” of i nterviews was an in dic ia of guilt or ot herwi se attempted to focus the j ury on def endan t’s sile nce. Af ter a careful
rev i ew of the rec ord, i nc l udi ng the dial ogue be twe en the State an d i ts wi tne ss es , we

f i nd no e rror here. B. Pl ea-re l ate d Custodi

al Sta tem en ts Defend ant furt her at t ack s t he su bst ance of t he ad mitt ed c onve rsa t ions w ith p olice by contendi ng that the Stat e vi

olated hi s righ

t t o a fai r trial because the conversations were evi dence
o f his a t t emp t s t o ple a b ar ga in, as he o ffer ed t o co nfe ss if he we r e t o r ec eiv e o nly p r o ba t io n. Ru le 402(f) provides that, “[i]f a pl ea di scussi

on does not result in

a pl ea of gui

lty, *** nei

ther the plea discu ssio n nor any res ult ing agr eement , p lea, or judg ment s hall be admissible aga inst t he defend ant in any criminal pro cee ding. ” I ll. S. Ct . R . 4 02( f) (e ff. July 1, 199 7) . D efenda nt ac kn owl edge s th at he f ai l ed to pre serv e th

i s iss ueon a ppe al ashe di d n ot obj ec t to the

us ag e of the statements at trial , but urges us to o verlook his f orfei ture. As s t at ed ab o ve , we mus t firs t de t er mine w he t he ran y er r o ro cc ur r ed as pa rt o f a p lain error analy

si s, whi ch requi res us now to exami

ne wh ether defen

dant’s statemen

ts were pleare late d. Our sup re me co ur t , in People v. Friedman , 79 Il l . 2d 341 (19 80) , estab l i sh

ed a tw oprong test to determ

i ne wh ethe r a statem en t is an i nadm i ssi bl e pl ea-re l ated statem

en t. A sta tem en t i s a plea-re l ate d a

nd i na dm i ss i bl e if : (1 ) th e def

en da nt e xh i bi ted a sub j ec ti ve ex pe cta ti on t o ne go t iate a plea ; and ( 2) t he exp ect at ion wa s re aso nable und er t he t ot ality o f the objec t ive1-09-2472

19

ci rcum stan ces . Friedman , 79 Ill . 2d at 351. T he “ characterization of a s tatement as plea-related is fact speci

fi c, and courts may

consider a variety of f

actors in m

aki ng thi s determi

nation.” People v. Jones , 219 Il

l . 2d 1, 27(2006 ). At trial , vari ous Stat e wi

tnesses n ot ed that while

defen dant was i n custody, he

repeated durin g a seri es of i

nterviews that, in

exch ange f or his “ confes sion,” he wan

ted “guarantees” that he would receiv

e pro bation as oppo sed to im prisonm ent. Gigli o remarked o n this v

arious times, including t est ify

ing t hat defend ant “was a damant abo ut not want ing t o d o a ny jail , a bou t want ing t o g et pr oba t ion. He s aid he w ou ld t alk t o u s abo ut what we w er e t her e t o t alk t o him abo ut if he ha d those gua ran tee s.” De tec ti ve Jon esalso state d that d ef

en da nt asked “ i f he ga ve a c onf es si on what guarantees would h

e hav e,” and that defe

ndan t “wanted to know t hat he h ad guarantees that he wa s no t go ing t o g o t o jail if he spo ke t o u s.” Det ect ive Jo nes a lso r emark ed t hat , d ur ing t he same conversation, defen

dant sta ted, “I wil

l gi ve y ou a co nf ession. Just go g et me another glass of water.” Fi

nal ly , during c losi

ng argum ents, the State r ei

terat ed Detective J

ones’ testim

ony, that “the def endan t said i f h e gave a conf

essi on, what guarantees did he h ave.” The State argued du r ing o pe ning st at eme nt s t ha t de fen da nt ha d a t t emp t ed “t o br o ke r a d ea l wit h t he po lice in
ex ch an ge f or te l l i n g th em wh at rea l l y h appen ed ,”an

d th en l ate r a rgue d def en da n t’s sta tem en ts were “i ncul patory ” an d “ adm i ssi ons of gui l t.” The a pp rop riate

i n qui ries h ere a rewh eth er de f en da n t ex h i b i ted a s ub j ecti v e ex pe cta ti on to nego t iate a plea and w het her his expe ct at ions w er e r eas ona ble unde r t he t ot ality o f the objec t ive cir cu mst an ce s. We an sw er bo t h inq uir ies affir mat ive ly. W e fir st ac kn o wle dg e t ha t o ur su pr eme cou rt h asnote d that “ of

f ers to coop era

te, wi thou t more, do n

ot con sti tute p l ea ne gotiati ons or1-09-2472

20

off ers to enter into plea n

egotiations.” People v. Hart , 214 Ill . 2d 490, 507 (2005). The f actual
sce na ri o prese nted here, however, i

ndi cates def endan t off ered m uch more than

mere c ooperati on. The St at e pr imarily

re lies upo n Hart

in arg uing no plea- re late d st at ement s we re made, but t he defen dant there suggested onl

y tha t he “m igh t be wi ll in g to cooperat e wi

th Detective Bec

k.” Hart , 21 4 Il

l . 2d at 5 11. Th e supr

em e c ourt, i n f i nd i ng tha t the “rud i men ts of the ne gotiati on process” were not present, found si gnifi cant that the defen

dant only desi red to know what De t ec t ive Be ck an d n o o ne els e c o ul d d o , t ha t no co nt ac t wa s ma de wit h t he S t at e’ s A t t o rne y, an d t he de fen da nt did no t st at e w ha t “c o o pe r at io n” en t aile d n o rsp ec ify wh at he wo uld r eq uir e in
ex change f

or cooperation. Id. at 51 1. I n t he ca se at ba r , ho we ve r , de fen da nt did no t sp ea k o nly to Detective Jone s regardin g guarantees, but al so to ASA Gigl io, whom defen dant bel ie ved was pr os ecu t ing t he mat t er . D efenda nt was clear ly att empt ing t o ba rg ain for a sp ecific sent ence , a nd spe ci f i ed that his coopera

tion would con si st of a

conf ess i on to the cri

mes h e was be i ng h eld f or. W hi l e w e n ote that a con f es si on, i n c erta i n c i rcu m sta nc es , m i gh t not b e e qui

va l en t to a pl ea of guil ty, def endan t here specifi

cally requested a guarantee that he would recei ve probation as opposed t o any

im prisonm ent if he conf essed. From

that, it is apparen

t t o t hi s court t hat de f en da n t wa s n eg oti ati ng a ci rc um v en ti on of th e tr i al proce ss an d wi l l i n g to s ub j ect h i m se l f to sent encing, t hat is, p lead g uilty, if it c ou ld be gu ar ant eed he wo uld r ece ive pr oba t ion. The rudi men ts of th e negoti ati on proce ss a

re cl earl y pres en t here
. This ca se is mo re analo go us t o t he fact s in Friedman asoppos ed to Hart . I n Friedman , testim ony b y a Stat e’s A tt orney i nve stigator was eli

ci ted that t he def

endan t, o ver the phone , pr ovid ed a n unso licited s t at ement wher e he inqu ired abo ut “making a d eal” a nd st at ed, “ ‘If I 'm1-09-2472

21

co nvicte d, I w ou ld ra t her go t o a Fede ra l priso n as o ppo sed t o a St at e pr ison, ’ ” t o w hich the witne ss responded wi

th, “ ‘I ha ve n o contr ol over that, talk to Mr. Rosenbe rg.’ ” Friedman , 79 Ill . 2d at 35 0. The

supr em e court held tha

t was s uf f i cien t to consti tute a pl ea-re l ated statem

en t. Id. at 35 2. We find t he de fen da nt ’s st at eme nt s he r e t o be t he leg al e qu iva len t o f t ho se in Friedman . We accordin

gly fi nd that defen

dant exh ibited a sub

je ctive expectation to negotiate a plea, and under the t ot ali

ty of the o bjective ci

rcumsta nces discussed abo ve, defendant ’s expectations of

negotiation were reasonabl e and the stateme

nts were, therefore, in

adm is si ble. Ha vi ng f oun d that a n e rror d i d oc cu r, w e m ust now de term i ne whether s

uc h a n e rror wa rra n ts rev er sa l . We f i n d th at i t doe s u n der the s ec on d p ron

g of th e p l ai n er ror d octr i n e. Fi rs t, the fact t hat li

tt le negotiation a

ctuall y took place is of l

ittle i mportance, as our supreme court has hel d that “an off

er to enter negotiation i

s i ndi stin guis hab le from a statement m

ade at an adva

nced stage of the negotiation process in terms of i

ts im pact upon a jury .” Friedman , 79 Il l . 2d at 35 2. Sec ond , a nd mo st impor t ant ly, this c ou rt and o ur sup re me co ur t have he ld t hat t est imony relat ing
such i nf orm ati on h asa “ de vasta

ti ng ef f ec t” a nd i s prejudi ci al even i n th e p res en ceof
overw he l m i ng e vi den ce a gai nst the de f

endan t. Id. at 352; see People v. Hoerer , 375 Ill . App. 3d 148 , 15 4 (2 007 ); People v. Ousley , 29 7 Il l . A pp. 3d 7 58, 764

(19 98) ; s eealso People

v. Hill , 78 I ll. 2 d 4 65 , 47 2 ( 19 80 )
. We be lieve t his a ss es sme nt is a pp lica ble un de rt he sp ec ific fa ct s o f t his case. Def endan t’s ple a-related statemen

ts were offered b

y two Stat e wi

tnesses an

d al so argued wi th e m phas i s d uri ng the State ’s cl osi ng arg um en ts. Gi ve n th e p oten ti al l y de vasta ti ng ef f ec t of such testim

ony a nd the i mpossi ble task of parsi

ng out what actual ef

fect i t had on the j ury, we must re ver se d efenda nt ’s co nvictio ns and re mand fo r a t rial o n t his issue. The St at e must re frain,1-09-2472

22

durin g retrial , from i

ntroducing an

y of the ple a-related statemen ts detailed above. Because we rev

erse on thi s i ssue, certain

is sues on appeal

have been

rendered m

oot , but we wi l l addre ss a ny i ssue tha t coul d occur a

gai n on retrial or otherwise provi

de gu i dan ce i n f uture pro ceedings. C. Do ub le J eo pa r dy Bec aus e we re ver se o n t he gr ou nds s t at ed a bove , w e ar e no w bo und t o c ons ider t he dou b l e j eop ardy

i m pl i ca ti on s of our f i n di n g th at th e u se of i n ad m i ss i b l e p l ea-re l ate d state

men ts war ra nt s re ver sal. T he do uble jeo par dy claus e pr ohibit s re t rial for t he pu rp os e o f affor ding t he pro secution anot her oppo rtu ni ty to supply

evidence which i

t fail ed to present in the fi

rst procee di ng. Burks v. United States , 437 U.S. 1, 11 (1978). It does not, however, preclude retrial wher e a c onvict ion has been s et aside beca use of a n er ro r in t he pr oc eed ings lead ing t o t he
conv i cti on. People v. Mink, 141 Ill . 2d 163, 173-74 (1990). Furtherm ore, “retrial i

s perm itted
even though evi

dence is i nsuf fi ci ent to sust ai

n a verdict once erroneousl y a dmi tt ed evi dence h as been dis counted, and for the purposes of double j eopardy al l e vi dence sub mi tt ed at the origin

al trial ma y b e considered when

determi ni ng the suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence.” Olivera , 164 Ill . 2d at 393 (citi ng Lockhart v. Nelson , 488 U .S. 33 (19 88)). Whe n r ev iew ing t he su fficie nc y o f t he ev ide nc e, t he ap pr o pr iat e s t an da r d o f r ev iew is whether, af

ter viewi ng the ev ide nce i n the l igh t most favorabl

e to t he prosecution, an

y rational trier of f act could hav

e found the e ssen

tial el em ents of the off

ense we re proven bey

ond a
reas onab l e doubt. People v. Pollock , 202 Ill . 2d 189, 217 (2002) (quo ting Jacks on v. Vir ginia , 443 U .S. 307, 3 18-19(1979 )).1-09-2472

23

We first co nsider defend ant ’s co nvictio ns re late d t o J .M. and J .T . Aft er viewing t he relev ant evi dence i n the l igh t most favorabl

e to t he State, we conclude that a rational trier of f act co uld ha ve fo un d d efe nd an t gu ilt y o f t he ch ar ge s r ela t ed t o J. M. an d J
. T . be yo nd a r ea so na ble doubt. Ho wever, thi s determi nation i s not bi ndi ng on retrial

and i s not in

tended to express an opini on concerni

ng def endan t's guilt or in

nocence. A

ccordingl y, we f in d no double

je opardy i m pedi men t to retrial as to an y of def endan t’s c onv i cti ons d i rectl y related to J.M . and J.T. W e n ex t con si der de f en da nt’ s c onv i cti on of pos se ss i on of

ch i l d por nog raphy un der s ec ti on 11- 20. 1(a )(6 ) of the Cri m i na l Code of 196 1. 7 20 I LC S 5/ 11- 20. 1(a )(6 ) (W es t 200 8). A

pers on com m i ts th e of f ense of ch i l d por nog raphy un der s ec ti on 1 1-2 0.1 (a) (6) , wh o: “wi th knowle dge of the na

ture o r content t hereof, possess es any fi lm , videotape, photogra ph or oth er s i

m i l ar v i sual reproducti

on or depicti on b y com pute r of an y ch i l d or
se ve r ely o rpr o fo un dly me nt ally r et ar de d p er so n w ho m t he pe r so n k no ws o rr ea so na bly should know to be under the age of 18 or to be a sev erely or pro foundl

y m entally retarded person, engaged i

n an y a ctivi ty descri bed i n sub paragraphs (i

) through (vii

) of paragraph (1) of thi s su bs ection[.]” 7 20 IL CS 5/1 1-20.1 (a)(6) (W est 200 8). We f in d defen dant’s conv

iction bas ed on section 11-20.1(a)(6) to be problem atic. The ev

ide nce pre sente d i

n s upp ort of de f en da nt’ s c onv i cti on on thi s cha rge wa s pri mari l y base d up on po ss es sio n o f a c o mpa ct dis c, lab ele d “ Jo se ’s St uff, ” w hic h c o nt ain ed a v ide o clip alle ge dly dep icting a minor per for ming or al sex o n a male. The video clip was viewed by the jur y dur ing the Stat e’s cas e-in

-chief. Most of the rem

ai ni ng ev ide nce i n support of the pornography ch arge came in test im ony by John Griffi

n, Jr. , who was employed as an in vestigat or with the S tat e’s1-09-2472

24

Attorne y ’sOf f i ce a t the ti me of thi s i nv esti gation. Defe nse couns el

stipul ated that he was an ex

pert, but o nl

y i n the area of c omputer forensi c anal

ysi s. The relevant testimony Grif fi n off ered follows: “[GRIFFIN]: There was a par ticular vi deo t hat says, ‘13-year-old giv e head’, so that was a red fl

ag for m e. [STA TE] : In

f act, y ou w ere l ooki n g f or c h i l d p orn

ograph y , i s th at c orre ct? A: I wa s, ma’ am. Q: An d ‘13-y ear-old gi ve h ead’ al erted you? A: Abs o lu t ely. Q: O kay. Did you , in fact , w at ch t hat video t hat was t itled , ‘1 3- year- old give head’? A: I did , ma’ am. Q: An d could y ou please de scri

be to the Ladies

and Gen tlem en of the J

ury wh at y ou ob serv ed

i n th at v i de o? A: I obs er ved a young – se emed t o be a you ng ad oles cent per for ming fell at io o n a male subject , he loo ked t o be old er t han her , his hea d wa s no t in the vid eo , he was laying back on the b ad or sofa, she was on h er knees, an

d I can tell

she was sm all i n stature, underdeveloped breasts. Q: Did y ou belie ve the f em al e depi cted in

that vide o was a juv

eni le ? A: I did, m a’a m .” Gr iff in reit er at ed s imi

lar t est imony on r edir ect examinat ion.1-09-2472

25

We f irst ackn owledge that “i

n determi ni ng ch il d pornography, based upon i ts every day
ex perien ce s, a tri er of f ac t ca n d eterm i ne f rom a p hotog raph w he the r a c hi l d i s u nd er ‘ the ag e of si xteen.’ ” People v. Schu bert , 1 36 I ll. App. 3d 3 48, 354 (1 985 ). In o t her wo rd s, image s and vi deos s peak f or them sel ve s i n de term i ni ng w hether s uch medi a con sti tutes ch i l d pornograph

y . See People v. Phillips , 346 Il l . Ap p. 3d 48 7, 497 ( 2004) ; People v. Thomann , 197 Ill . App. 3d 488, 497-98 (1990). With thi s i n m in d, after reviewi

ng the record and vi

ewi ng the v ide o at issue, this court has m

ade a num

ber of troubli

ng observ ations. The v

ide o was 11 seconds l

ong, lacked audi o, and was recorded at a low resolution. The f em al e subj ect is f

ull y c lothed wi

th a sweater and ev ide nt bra undergarm

ent at the very

begi nni ng. The m

al e partici pant is never seen, ex

cept for his penis, whi

ch is visi ble for the approxi

ma tely seven seconds of recorded f

ella tio. Al though t he female had app ar ent ly remove d her swe at er pr ior t o t he se x act , o nly her sho ulder s, fa ce a nd
r igh t ha nd ar e v isible du r ing t he fella t io po rt io n o f t he vid eo . No t hing be ne at h he rsho uld er s is observed an

d there is nothin g whi ch would in

dic ate whether her b

reasts were “un

derdevel oped.” Most i m portantl y , the f em ale su bj ect i s n ot obvi ousl y adolesc en

t or juv en i l e i n a ppea rance. As to Grif f i n, the def en se stip ulated h e was an ex pert i n c omp uter f orens i cs on

l y . Alt ho ug h w e a ck no wle dg e G r iffin t es t ified t o an ex t en sive ba ck gr o un d in co mpu t er fo r en sic s a s it
r ela t ed t o ch ildpo rno gr ap hy, he wa s n o t a r ec o gn ize d e xp er t in hum an fig ur es , an at o my, me dic in e, or any f

ie ld that m

igh t t ransl ate to an ex

pert abil ity to determi

ne the age of

an i ndi vi dual by obse rving a brief video clip. E ssent ially , a ltho ugh he was per mitt ed t o t est ify , o ver objec t ion, as to t he age of

the in div idua l i n the v ide o cli p, he was i

n no be tt er position to determi

ne the age
o f t he ind ividua l de pic t ed in t he vid eo at ha nd t ha n t he jur y o rt his c o ur t . We als o no t e t ha t wh ile1-09-2472

26

we af ford great deferen

ce to jury determ

in ations on credi

bi li ty an d dem eanor of wi

tnesses, as they are in a superior po si

tion to a reviewi

ng court in obs ervi

ng wi tnesses wh

il e testif yi ng (see People v. Wheeler , 2 26 I ll. 2d 9 2, 114 -1 5 ( 200 7) ), t he pr imary evidence her e is a vide o c lip which t he j ury i s i n n o be tter p osi ti on to v i ew tha n th i s c ourt. W

e a re n ot sugge sti

ng the j ury i s sti l l not af f orde d sub sta

nti al de f ere nc e a s th e tri er of f ac t; h oweve r, w he re c erta i n e vi denc e doesnot invo lve cr ed ibilit y de t er minat io ns o ro bse rva t io ns o f de mea no r , t he de fer en ce affo r de d is lo gic ally less. Al so t rou bl

in g is the f act t hat, co ntrary to Grif

fi n’s testim ony, the fi le n ame f rom the disc did not put at ively cont ain the age of t he female pa rt icipant . R at her , it was number ed 1 3 in a long list o f numbere d video s and pho t og ra phs, wit h t he liter al fil e name be ing “13g ivehead .” The abbreviation “y .o .” is not in the vi deo title, o r anywhere on t he disk itself . On t he disk’s
enum erated contents, it was preceded by im ages num bered 1 through 12 and f

oll owed by an im age numb ered 015- 0015, with no suggest ion that any others incl uded subjects who were ages 1 through 15. The jury

viewed onl

y f il e 13 and n

one of the other num

bered f il es. The prej udic ia

l eff ect o f specifi

call y i dentif yi ng the fem

ale i n this v ideo as a “13-year-old” i s obvious in thi s case where def endan t was accused of aggrav

ated sexual

abuse of two girls that speci

fi c age, par t icular ly where t her e is no t hing o n t he video t o o ut war dly sugg est t hat t he pa rt icipant in the
se x a ct wa s t ha t ag e. T he St at e c o mpo un de d t his p r o ble m by at t emp t ing t o de r ide an y po ss ible “c o inc ide nc e” du r ing clo sing ar gu men t : “ T he r e’ s a co inc ide nc e t ha t t he r e’ s s o me c hild pornogra phy on here wi

th a y oung gi rl , l i ke, y ou know , a j uve

ni l e perf ormi ng ora l sex on a g uy . Wow , t hat ’s a c oincide nce. Tha t ’s kind o f the same t hing t hat t hese girls have been t alking1-09-2472

27

about.” Allo win g t his t es t imo ny an d a r gu men t , de sp it e t he ab se nc e o f an y evid en ce t ha t t he fema le in t he vid eo clip wa s, in fa ct , a 1 3- yea r - o ld, wa s e rr o r . We ar e, ho we ve r , bo un d t o co nsid er all
ev i denc e i n a l i gh t most f av orabl e to the Sta

te, i nc l udi ng err one ous l y ad m i tted e vi denc e f or pur po ses o f a do uble jeo par dy analysis. E ven aft er do ing so , ho weve r, a simple viewing o f the vid eo clip it se lf cr ea t es r ea so nable do ub t as t o de fen da nt ’s co nvic t io n o n t his s pe cific ch ar ge . I t is t he judg ment o f this co ur t t hat t he pr ot ect ions o f do uble jeo par dy on t he child po rno gr aphy co unt pr ec lud e a ny r et r ial o n t ha t ch ar ge . Ob vio us ly, t he vid eo may no t be sho wn o n r et r ial. D. Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 4 31( b) Def endan t conten ds that the tri

al court f ail ed to properl

y question the prospectiv

e j urors regar di ng w hether they

und erstood an

d acc epted c ertai

n pr i nc i ples, a s req

ui red b y Supreme Court Ru l e 4 31 (b ). I l l . S. Ct. R. 43 1(b ) (e f f . M ay 1, 2 00 7) . D ef

en da n t doe s n ot dispute th at h e f ai l ed to obje ct to this

alle ged error. Nonethel ess, he as serts that a Rule 431(b) v iolation requi

res automati c rev

ersa l or that rev

ersa l i s req ui red un der the pl ai n error doctri

ne . Rule 4 31( b) is a c od ifi

cat ion o f ou r su pr eme co ur t ’s de cision in People v. Zehr , 103 Ill . 2d 472 (1 984 ), which held t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by re fusing t he de fendant ’s r equ est t o a sk t he
veni re ab out four f

und am en tal pri nc i ples of l aw. Zehr , 103 Il

l . 2d at 47 6-78. Th

e f our Zehr pri n ci pl es are th at ( 1) th e def

en da n t i s pre su med i n n oce n t; (2 ) the def

en da n t m ust b e proved

gui l ty beyond a r eas ona ble do ubt ; (3 ) t he de fendant is not re quir ed t o p ro duc e any evide nce; a nd ( 4) t he def endan t’s f ail ure to testi f

y can not be he l d aga i nst hi m . Zehr , 10 3 I l l . 2d

at 4 77 . Pu

rsua n t to Rul e 431(b), the trial

court mus

t address the Zehr

pr inc iple s, ev en in t he ab se nc e o f a s pe cific1-09-2472

28

request by

the defe ndan t and “sh all ask each potentia

l juror, in div idua ll y or i n a group, whether t ha t jur o run de r st an ds an d a cc ep t s” t ho se pr inc iple s, an d “ [ t ] he co ur t 's me t ho d o f inq uir y sha ll provide ea

ch j uror an oppo rtunity

to respond to specif

ic questions c oncerni

ng the pri nci ple s set out in this section.” Ill . S. Ct. R. 43 1(b ) (ef f . May 1, 2007 ). Th is iss ue has bee n r end er ed mo o t , a s w e ha ve a lre ad y de t er mined t hat t he R ule 40 2( f) vi olation di scussed above warrants reversal and an y jury on retria

l wi ll presum abl y h ave an entirel y di ff erent composi

tion of i ndi vi dual s. Neverthel

ess, we note that during voir dire of t he insta nt cas e, t he t rial co ur t add re ssed t he po t ent ial juro rs a s a g ro up a nd st at ed e ach Zehr pr inciple but er re d by not ask ing t he po t ent ial juro rs w het her t hey unde rst oo d and acc ept ed t he pr inc ip les as r eq ui r ed by Rul e 4 31 ( b)
. Any p o t en t ial e rr o ro n r et r ial c an be ea sily a vo id ed by a si m ple rec i tation of the Rul

e 431 (b) pri

nc i ples a nd a sub seq uen t conf i rm ati on tha t the j urors un de r st an d a nd ac ce pt t he m.

E. Disqual

if ic ation of Def

ense C ounsel

Michael Cl ancy De fen da nt co nt en ds t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n in d isq ua lifying h is o r igin ally
re tai n ed attor n ey , M i ch ae l Cl an cy , f rom repr es en ti n g def en da n t at tr i al . W h i l e th e iss ue i s m oot, we be lieve the re exist s a p os sibil ity t hat simi

lar issu e co uld ar ise o n re t rial and t hus w ill co mment o n it
. T he r ele va nt fac t s a r e a s fo llo ws : C lan cy w as r et ain ed by d efe nd an t wh ile he wa s in custody at the Frankl

in Park Poli ce station on October 22, 2004, and he sub sequentl y f il ed a
n um b er of pl eadi n gson b eh al f of de f en da n t. O n Oc tob er 30 , 20 06 , C l an

cy f i l ed a m oti on to sup pr ess s t at ement which allege d: (1 ) O n Oct obe r 2 7, 200 4, Clancy met wit h defend ant at t he Frankli n Park po li

ce depart men

t; (2) defendan

t, in the presence of Clancy

and Detect iv

e Jones,1-09-2472

29

asserted his righ

t t o remain

sil ent; (3) defendant signed a wri tt en assertion of hi s Miranda r igh t s in t he pr es en ce o f Cla nc y and De t ec t ive Jo ne s; an d ( 4) wa s q ue st io ne d a nd mad e s t at eme nt s in vio lat io n o f Edwar

ds v. Arizona , 451 U .S. 477 (1 981). A hear ing o n t he mot ion t o s upp re ss wa s held ne ar ly two years late r. Jus t pr ior t o t he heari ng, however, the State moved to disqual if y C la ncy . The trial

court found that the “wri tt en mo t io n a ct ua lly re nd er s M ich ae l Cla nc y as a ma t er ial w it ne ss , ” a nd su bse qu en t ly dis qu alifie d h im
an d o r de r ed Mic ha el G o gg in t o su bst it ut e o n t he mo t io n t o su pp r es s. Aft er t he he ar ing , Go gg in reque sted that the c i

rcui t court recon sider C l ancy ’sdi squa l i f i cation b ut the re quest was den

i ed. Gog gi n f i l ed a m oti on to rec ons i der Cl

an cy ’s di sq ual i f i ca ti on on A ugust 7 , 20 08, bu

t the moti on wasden i ed, as wasGoggi

n’ s later attem

pt to renew

the m otion j ust pri or to trial
. There is a pr es um pti on i n f av or of a def en da n t’s ch oi ce of cou n se l ; h owev er , the s i

xth amendment right t o c hoo se o ne’s o wn co unse l is not abso lut e, and c hos en co unse l may be di squa l i f i ed if a se ri ous poten

tia l f or a conf l i ct of i ntere st exi sts. People v. Holmes , 141 Ill . 2d 204 , 2 17 ( 199 0) . I n det er mini ng whe t her a co nfli

ct of int er est exist s su ch t hat co unse l must be disqu alifi ed, a t rial co ur t enga ges in a tw o- st ep a nalysis. First , t he t rial co ur t must first det er mine whether a n a ctu al con f l i ct of i nte res t ex i sts or th ere i s a sh owi ng of “‘s eri ouspote nti

al f or conf l i ct’ ” b etween a

n a ttorney ’si

ntere st an d hi s or her cl i en t. People v. Ortega , 209 Ill . 2d 354, 361 (2004) (quot in

g Wheat v. United States , 486 U.S. 153, 164 (1988)). If a confl ict is f ound, t he next det er minatio n is whet her t he inte re st s t hre at ened by the c onflict ove rc ome t he presum pti on f avorin g def endan t's c hose n c ouns el
. Ortega , 209 Ill . 2d at 361. T he trial court ma y co nsid er va r io us fac t o r s in ma kin g t his d et er minat io n, inc lud ing : ( 1) t he de fen da nt 's in t er es t in1-09-2472

30

ha vi ng the un di vi de d l oyal ty of cou ns el ; ( 2) th

e Sta te' s ri gh t to a f ai r tri al ; ( 3) th e a ppe ara nc e of i m propriety sh oul d the j ury l ea rn of the con f l i ct; (4) the

prob ab i l i ty tha t con ti nu ed repres en tation by cou nsel o f cho ice will pro vide gr ou nds fo r o ver t ur ning a co nvictio n; and ( 5) whet her t he State's clai m that a c onf

l i ct warra nts d i squa l i f i cation i s the

resu l t of ove rreachi ng. Ortega , 20 9 I ll. 2d at 361-62. W e re vi ew a tri al cou rt’ s f i nd i ng of a s eri ouspote nti

al f or con f l i ct u nd er th e a buse of di scre tion stan dard. People v. Collins , 38 2 Il l . A pp. 3d 1 49, 153 (20 08) . “A n a buse of di screti on o cc ur s w he r e t he t r ial c o ur t 's r ulin g is ar bit r ar y, f an cifu l o rwh er e n o r ea so na ble pe r so n w o uld take the vi ew adopted by the tri al court .” People v. Chil dress , 338 Il l . Ap p. 3d 54 0, 545 ( 2003)
. A s a threshol d m atter, d ef en da nt c i testo Burnette

v. Terr ell , 23 2 I ll. 2 d 5 22 ( 20 09 ) , in support o f h

is assertion that the trial

court fai le d to appropriately

consider the aforem

entione d Ortega f ac tors. W

hi l e w e agre e that a

com pletel ac k of

an y reason i ng wi thi n th e re cord f or dis qualif ic ation would ren

der mea ni ngf ul rev ie w of the i nstant i ssue i

mpossi ble, a trial court need not explicitly enga ge in a s pec ifi c eva luat ion o f each Ortega f actor on th e rec ord

wh en mak i n g i ts determ i na tion
. People

v. White , 395 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 79 7, 828 ( 2009)
. We f in d that t he trial

court did n

ot abuse i ts discretion here. As

stated, a t rial

court ma y disq ual i f y de f ense cou n se l wh ere th ere is s eri ous

pote n ti al f or a con f l i ct of i n terest. G i v en th at a consi derabl e a moun t of the State ’s ev i denc e i nv ol ve d e ve nts occurr i ng wi thi n th e p ol i cesta

ti on an d t ha t Cla nc y had pr ev io us ly t es t ified du r ing a mo t io n t o su pp r es s, t he t r ial c o ur t co rr ec t ly fou nd, aft er hear ing multiple a rg ument s fro m the S t at e and defend ant , t hat “it is likely that t he Stat e could cal

l A tt orney C la

ncy as a wi tness unde

r a more credi

ble fac tual scen ario.” Clancy

had1-09-2472

31

al re ad y testi f i ed to ce rtai n ev en ts o ccur ri n g a t th e Fra n kl i n Pa rk pol i ce de pa rtm en t an d th e S tate bel iev ed there was po tential Cl

ancy may be required to test if

y as to ot her surro undin

g events, wh i ch the tri al cou rt ag ree d w i th. W e do not f

i nd thi s determ i na ti on to b e a

rb i trar y , f an cif ul , or such that no reasonab le

person would take the vi ew adopted by the tri al

court , especially

when considerin

g the Stat e’s cas e and def endan t’s theory at trial

that challe

nged the veraci

ty of v arious individuals at t he po lice dep ar t ment. Altho ugh t he St at e did no t call Clancy as a wit ness in t he
o r igin al p r o ce ed ing s, we find t ha t t o be irr ele va nt as we de cline t o en ga ge in ahind sig ht an alys is i n de term i ni ng w hether a tria l court properl

y ex erci sed i ts di scre tion . Ac cordi

ngl y , the tri al court did n ot err here. Fu r t he rmo r e, we find t ha t t he so le c as e d efe nd an t r elie s o n in s up po rt o f his a r gu men t is dist inguishable. In People v. James , t his c o ur t re ver se d t he t ria l co ur t ’s d isq ua lificat io n o f a def endan t’s a ttorney . People v. James , 3 68 I ll. App. 3d 4 33, 437 (2 006 ). In James , a defend ant ’s o riginal jury wa s de adlo cke d o n a se rio us c har ge bu t a co defend ant was acq uit t ed in a sep arate tri

al . The def endan t di sch arged his attorne

y s an d retai ne d codef endan t’s a ttorneys. De fen da nt ’s ne w a t t o rne ys c o nd uc t ed an int er vie w w it h c o de fen da nt , wh ich wa s me mo r ializ ed in
a wr itt en r epo rt pr epa re d by co defend ant ’s new co unse l. Ju st pr ior t o t rial, it was re vealed t he
co de fend ant wo uld be c alled as a d efe nse wit nes s. Th e S t at e s ubs eq ue nt ly move d t o dis qu alify defend ant ’s at t or ney, a rg uing t hat sho uld co defend ant t est ify incons iste nt ly, the St at e wo uld be fo r ce d t o ca ll de fen da nt ’s at t o rne ys a s w it ne ss es . T he t r ial c o ur t gr an t ed t he mo t io n a nd t his
cou rt reve rs ed . How ever, the

basis f or th e re ve rs al wa s b as ed

on a nu m be r of f ac tors: (1) codefend ant had w aived a ny att or ney-client pr ivil ege bet wee n him and defend ant ’s at t or neys and1-09-2472

32

any accompan

yi ng conf ide ntial ity ; (2) the potential

for def endan t’s atto rney

s to be call

ed as witne sses was

hi ghl y s pecul ative

as no report o f the i

nterview existed in

the record; and (3) codefen dant’s n ew counsel

could have testif

ie d as to t he content of the i nterview i f n

eeded. Put si mpl y, n one of those fa

ctor s exist here and we theref ore fi nd Jamesto be f

actuall y un persuasi ve. F. Right to a Publ

ic Trial De fen da nt ne xt co nt en ds he wa s d en ied his r igh t t o a p ub lic t r ial w he n no nw it ne ss family members w er e allege dly exclude d fro m the c ou rt ro om. Again, beca use we ha ve r ever sed on a sep ar at e issue , w e find t hat t his issue is mo ot and a ny discuss ion r elat ing t o it wo uld p ro vide no gui da n ce to th e p ar

ti es or th e tr i al cou rt on re trial . Acc ordi

n gl y , w e dec l i

n e to a dd re ss i t. G. Fo unda t ion o f Visual Re co rd ing o f All ege d Child Po rno gr aphy Defe ndan t next contends that the trial court abused i

ts discretion in

adm ittin g a vi sual
r ec o r din g w it ho ut a p r o pe rfo un da t io n. T he visu al r ec o r din g w as ev ide nc e o ffer ed o nly in
su pp o r t t he ch ar ge o f po ss es sio n o f ch ild p o rno gr ap hy, a c ha r ge wh ich we ha ve de t er mined is
su bj ec t to a dou

bl e j eop ard y i m pe di men t. Be ca us e the v i sual rec ordi ng ha d n o be ari ng on defend ant ’s r emaining co nvictio ns t hat have no simi lar imped iment, we find t his co nt ent ion t o be
m oot a n d dec l i n e to a dd re ss i t. H. Mrs. Riv

era’s Testi

mony Regardi ng Def endan t’s Computer Defe ndan t next contends that the trial court erred in

allowi ng Mrs. Ri

vera to “opine ” that defen dant’s com

puter was “i

n workin g order.” Defendan

t argues that no foundation was of fered t o su pp o r t he rco nc lus io n. Ag ain , de fen da nt ac kn o wle dg es t ha t he did no t pr o pe r ly pr es er ve t his i ssue on a ppea l , but b eca

use i t is evi den tia ry i n n ature a nd m ay ari se a gai n on retri al , we ar

e1-09-2472

33

i n cl i n ed to co m men t on i t. We bel iev e that t hi s is n

ot a foundation iss

ue, but whet her her test im ony was proper as a la y w itnes s. Turnin

g to the testim

ony i n question, Mrs. Riv

era was asked b

y the Stat e, “As

far as you know wh

en y ou lef t t hat morni

ng, the computer was ass em bled and i n workin g order; is that righ t?” To which

she an swered, “Correct.” This court fi nds that the testim

ony di d not o ff er an op inion, bu t merely her per so nal obs er vat ions. A lay witnes s may pro per ly test ify t o o bser vat ions
or senso ry pe rc ept ions, altho ugh t he o ffering o f op inions o r int er pr et at ion o f tho se o bser vat ions are ge neral l y i m proper. People v. McCarter, 3 85 I ll. App. 3d 9 19, 934 (2 006 ). Fro m the c ont ext of t he t est imony and evide nce p re sent ed, Mrs . R ivera w as simply sta t ing t hat , a ltho ugh t he
com pute r later ap pe are d di sa ss em bl ed , th e c om

pute r wa s f ul l y as sem bl ed be f ore s he depa rted f or work t hat day . She off

ered absol

utely no in terpret ation or opini

on as to why the com

puter was disa ss em b l ed , w hi ch wou l d h av e b een i n ad m i ss i b l e. Inste ad , i

t wa s def en da n t wh o tes ti f i ed as to the reasons f

or disass em

bl y. Def endan t him self testif ie d that on Octo ber 22, 2004, the computer i n qu esti on wa s i n w orki ng order an

d tha t he on l y di sas sem bl ed th e com

puter b eca

use the h ard dri v e w as mak i n g a n oi se . In an y ev en t, w e f i n d th at i t wa s n ot i m prope r f or M rs . R i v era to t es t ify t ha t , t o he rkn o wle dg e a nd o bse rva t io n, a c o mpu t er ap pe ar ed t o be fully a ss emb led an d in working order, so long as s he ref rain ed from attempting to expl

ai n wh y the computer later appeared to be disassem

bled. I. Pr ior Co nsist ent St at ement Defendan t next co ntends that t he trial court er roneo usly admi tt ed a not e written by J.M. as a prior co nsistent stat em ent whi ch i mproperl y bolstered her credi

bi li ty. At trial , J.M. test if

ie d1-09-2472

34

that she had reached o ut t o a friend, E.S., on the same day s he spoke t o a schoo l teacher, Ms. Zu cc aro. A s to E.S ., J .M . te sti f i ed sh e h ad se n t a n ote to h er , a

n d th e S tate i n trod uc ed th e n ote as a n exh i bi t whi ch the tri al court adm

i tted i nto ev i den ce. De f endan t asse rts this wa s i

n error. Agai n, def endan t did not preserve thi s i ssue f or review on appe al , but as it i s an ev ide ntiary ma tt er th at m ay occ ur ag ai n on re trial, w e wi l l

addr es s i t. A s a gene ral matter, s tate men

ts m ade p rior to tri

al are i na dm i ss i bl e f or th e purp ose

of corroborati

ng tri al testi mony or reha bi l i tatin g a wi tnes s. People v. Cuadrado , 214 Ill . 2d 79, 90 (2005 ). Prior cons i sten

t statem en ts, howe ver, are a dm i ssi bl e i n two ci rcum stan ces : (1) wh

ere there is a charge that t he wi tness has recently

fab ricated the t estim

ony, or (2 ) where the witness ha s a m otive to testi f

y f al sel y . People v. Heard , 187 Ill . 2d 36, 70 (1999). In ei ther circum

stance, t he pr io rco nsis t en t st at eme nt mus t ha ve be en mad e b efo r e t he alle ge d fa br ica t io n o rmo t ive t o lie
arose. Id. at 70. De f en da nt a rguesthe note to E.S. wa s i

na dm i ss i bl e b ec au se i t serv ed asrep eti ti on of J.M. ’s test im

ony, im pro perly bolstering her cred ibi li ty. After an exami

nation o f the not e, J. M.’s t est imony, and defend ant ’s claims at t rial, w e ag re e. First , w e no t e t hat t he St at e as ser t s t hat t he
no t e w as ad miss ible u nd er se ct io n 1 15
- 10 o f t he Co de o f Cr iminal P r o ce du r e o f 19 63 as a c hild sex vict im out cr y sta t ement . 7 25 I LCS 5/ 115 -1 0 ( West 200 8) . S ect ion 1 15- 10 r equ ires, among ot her t hings, t hat suc h t est imony is admissible if “the ou t of c ou rt st at ement was made be for e t he vi ctim attained 13 y

ears of age or wi

thin 3 months after the comm

is sion of the off

ense, wh ic hever occurs l ater, b ut the s tate men

t may be ad m i tted r eg ard l es s of the ag e of the vi cti m at the ti me of the proceedin

g.” 725 ILCS 5/115-10(b)(3) (West 2008). The note was written on October 22,1-09-2472

35

20 04 , a n d def en da n t’s b i rth da y f al l s on Oc tob er 21 , 19 90 , theref

oreJ. M. wa s to o old f

or th e n ote t o be ad miss ible d ue t o he rag e. Fu r t he rmo r e, a c ar efu l ex amina t io n o f t he r ec o r d in dic at es t ha t it
was never clear ly esta blished whe n t he last sexu al act bet wee n defend ant and J .M. oc cur re d and thu s th e n ote w asalso n

ot ad m i ss i bl e purs ua nt to th e “ wi thi n 3 month

s af ter th e c om m i ss i on of the off ense” l anguage of

section 115-10. See People v. McDade , 345 Ill . App. 3d 912, 915 (2 004 ) ( co nt inuing o ffenses, suc h as p re dat or y criminal sexual ass ault , a re not co mplet ed u nt il the last act was acc omp lished). Acco rd ingly, the St at e’s a rg ument t hat t he no t e wa s ad missibl e at t he origi nal proceedin

gs under section 115-10 i s m is guide d. Furthermore, we agree t hat some of the cont ent of the not e is repetitiv e of test im

ony J.M. ha d pr ev i ous l y gi ve n. A mong the sta tem en ts i n l etter are that a

“ l ad y i s g oi ng to sue,” J.M ’s mom would be taken away, J.M. was scared, and that “i f this lady does what she sa

ys she’ s gona [ sic ] do I won’t be li

vin g here in Frankli

n Park a ny l

onger .” T o t he extent the lett er re peat s J.M. ’s test im ony, it is in

admissi ble. Al tho ugh it is tru e that , at tr ial , defendant argu ed t hat J. M.’s all egations were fabricated or had a mot iv e to test if y f alsel y, the prior consistent st atement must pre-da te the f abri cation or m

otive to li e. People v. McWhite , 399 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 63 7, 641 ( 2010)
. Her e, defend ant ’s t heo ry at t rial sug ges t ed a mot ive to lie existe d du e t o E velyn moving into t he f am i l y ’s res i denc e, w

hi ch occurred be f ore th e n ote a t que sti on waswri

tten . We f

urth er d o not f i n d a n y th i n g, n or h as th e S tate pr es en ted an y argu men t th at th ere is a n y th i n g, i n th e ev i den ce

to suggest that t he statemen t in ques tion qual if ie s f or admi ssion under any

exception. See People v. Deavers , 220 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 57, 107 3 (199 1). It is im po rt ant t o no t e t hat t his analysis is based so lely on t he sp ecific circu msta nces of t he1-09-2472

36

origi na l proc ee di ng . We a re n ot hol di ng tha t the note i n q ue sti on woul d never b e adm

i ss i bl e or t ha t men t io ning t he fac t t he no t e w as wr it t en is ina dmis sible
. Fu rt he rmo r e, o ur co mment s o n t his is sue are i ntended to be m

erely in structive i n f uture pro ceedi

ngs i n the i nstant m atter , as we ack now ledge t hat t he no t e in que st ion may ver y well be admissible unde r slight ly dif fere nt circumstances. J. F atal Vari ance of Coun t XIII Defe ndan t next contends that he was n ot found gui

lty of cri mi nal sexual assaul t bey ond a
re as on ab l e doub

t, spe ci f i ca l l y cou n t XI II of th e i n di ctm en t, w h ere h e w as ch arge d wi th two a cts of assaul t inv olvi ng contact of a penis wi

th a vagi na f or dif feren t t im e periods, but J.M. testif

ie d only to one act of contact. T he State agrees. Because we h ave rem anded f or a ret rial, this issue has be co me moo t . H ow ever , w e br iefly not e t hat defend ant ’s co nt ent ion her e is co rr ect . C ou nt XI I I ch ar ge s d efe nd an t wit h c r iminal s ex ua l as sa ult , alle gin g c o nt ac t be t we en de fen da nt ’s pe nis
an d J
. M. ’s va gin a o n o rab o ut Oc t o be r21 , 20 03 t o Oc t o be r10 , 20 04
. J. M. ’s t es t imo ny d ire ct ly contradicted this

alle gation, as sh

e testif ie d defen dant ma de contact between his penis and h er v ag i n a on l y on ce du ri n g th e s um mer of 20 03 . Th

eref ore , de f en da n t wa s i m prope rl y f oun d g ui l ty of thi s off ense. K. Inef fecti ve A ssi stance of Couns el Def endan t adv ances

a n um ber of a rgum en ts as to how his counsel

wasi ne f f ecti ve at tria l
. Because w e have reversed and remanded for a new t rial on ot her gro unds, we fi nd defendant’s
ar gu men t s t o be mo o t an d d ec line t o ad dr es s t he m. L. Pol i ce Re por t A dm i ss i b i l i ty1-09-2472

37

Defend ant next co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in admit t ing evidenc e co nt ained in a pol i ce re port. Poli

ce re ports are g eneral

l y i nadm i ssi bl e hears ay . People v. Shi nohara , 37 5 I ll. App. 3d 8 5, 113 (2 007 ). The y can be u sed , ho weve r, for pur po ses o f im pea chment or re freshing a wi tnes s’ recol

l ection. People v. Williams , 240 Il l . Ap p. 3d 50 5, 506 ( 1992)
. He r e, we ac kn o wle dg e t ha t de fen da nt wa s t he firs t t o as k D et ec t ive Jo ne s t o r efe rt o his pol i ce re port in the i nstant ca se. D ef

en se c ouns el

ask ed De tecti ve Jone s, on c

ross-exa m i na tion , a seri es of questions concerni ng a conv ersation h e had wi th J.T. For exampl

e, defen se counsel asked whether J.T . inf

ormed Dete ctive Jones that she was afraid h er parent s were go in

g to lose her hou se o r ment ioned defend ant ever picking he r u p wit h his tr uck . D et ect ive Jo nes st at ed he
co ul d n o t r ec all a nd wa s s ub se qu en t ly as ke d t o r ef er t o his po lice r ep o rt t o r ef r es h hi s me mo ry, aft er which he s t at ed he did no t re member J. T. re lating suc h informat ion t o him. O n re dire ct , t he Stat e revi si

ted the conversation b etween J.T. and Detective Jones, i nqui rin g about ot her statem en ts J.T. re l ated. In

i tia l l y , the State

ref erred to the poli ce re

port in ask i ng w hether J .T. mad e a pa r t icu lar st at eme nt t o De t ec t ive Jo ne s, su ch as , “D o es n’t t he r ep o rt als o sa y [J
. T . ] sa id she was afrai d Ci ndy would sue h

er fam il y?” and “ the report that counselor i ndicated talks ab out t his Cindy per so n, c or re ct ?” Ho weve r, t he vas t major ity o f the re dire ct did no t re fere nce t he po lice rep or t and o nly i

nquir ed a s t o t he co nver sat ion t hat t oo k plac e bet wee n J.T . a nd De t ect ive Jones. While we migh t find t ha t co nt inu ed r efe r en ce s t o a p o lice r ep o rt wo uld be impr o pe r , it is cl ear that the St ate was me rely relati ng other port ions

of the conve

rsation that occurred between him an d J
. T . On cr o ss - ex amina t io n, de fen se co un se l ha d e licit ed po rt io ns o f t he sa me1-09-2472

38

conv ersa tion between Detectiv e Jon es a nd J .T., usi

ng th e pol i ce re port to refre sh

his m em ory . The State was sim

ply attempting to do t he sam e i n an attempt t o introduce the remai ni ng ba la nce of the conve

rsation that had occurred, which i s acceptabl e. See People v. Stevens , 255 Ill . App. 3d 8 12, 815 (19 92)(hol di ng tha t where de f ense cou ns el ha d e l i ci ted porti ons of a c onv ers ati on bet wee n po lice officer and r ape victim, p olice o ffi cer co uld p ro per ly test ify

t o t he r emaining bal ance of the conversation). After a caref ul a nal ys is of the testim

ony, we f in d no error o ccurred here. M. S t at e’s C losing Ar gument De f en da n t n ex t con ten dsth at i t wa s e rror wh en th e S tate di re cte d to j ur

y to co n duct i

ts ow n handw rit ing co mpar ison o f the wr iting o n t he co mpact disc labe led “Jo se’s St uff,” a nd t he signature on a Miranda wai v er . Th i s iss ue i s a l so m oot a s a re su l t of our deter m i n ati on th at a re trial i s war ra n ted , but g i

v en th e n atu reof th e c on ten ti on we are i n cl i n ed to b rief l y com men t. Durin g cl osin g argumen

ts, t he State argued: “But when yo u lo ok at t his ‘Jo se’s St uff,’ if you r eally want t o k now t he au dac ity o f the defendan t, take a loo k at his Miranda waiver t oo . N ow , I ’m not a hand wr iting p er so n, but t hat’s a pret ty disti

nctive J that he signed when h e admi tt ed he signed hi s nam

e Jose Ri vera. The sam

e J i s on ‘Jose’s

Stuff.’ ” W e h ave h el d that a “ tri er of f ac t may exam i ne ha nd wri ti ng exem pl ars to de term

i ne the sou rce of qu es t io ne d h an dw r it ing bu t in t he firs t inst an ce t he co mpa r iso n mu st be mad e in o pe n c o ur t an d in the defe ndan t's presence .” People v. Hoover, 87 Il l . Ap p. 3d 74 3, 748 ( 1980) . This, however, did n ot occur. Furt herm

ore, whil e i t is n ot im proper for t he j ury to draw reasonabl e i nf erences1-09-2472

39

from the evi dence, we f

in d it i mproper for the State t o directly opine as to t he si

mi la riti es between what was wri

tt en on a com

pact disc an

d a Miranda waiver , p ar t icular ly where no handw rit ing
ex pe r t t es t ified at t r ial. Simila rco mment s s ho uld be av o ide d a t r et r ial. III. CONCLUSION In c onc lusion, we r ever se d efenda nt ’s co nvictio ns and re mand fo r a new t rial base d o n t he i m prop er a dm i ttan ceof plea -re l ate d s tate men

ts a t tri al . The p ri

nc i pl esof doubl e j eop ard

y do n ot pr ec lud e r et r ial a s t o an y cha r ge s r ela t ing t o J. T . an d J
. M. , ho we ve r , we ha ve fo un d d o ub le je opardy does precl

ude retrial

as to defendan

t’s chi ld pornography

charge. To reiterate, pleare late d st at ement s and evidenc e in sup po rt of o nly the child po rno gr aphy cha rg e sho uld no t be adm i tted upon r

etri al . Our an

al y si s of other ev i den tia ry i ssues w e hav e com

men ted on a re in tended to be instructive, but not necessa ril y c ontro ll in g, in future proceedin

gs, as we ac kn o wle dg e d iffer en t cir cu mst an ce s ma y alt er t he ult imat e a dmis sibilit y o f ev ide nc e a t r et r ial. Fo r the f ore goi n g r ea son s, we re v er se th e j udgm

en t of th e c i rc ui t cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty
an d r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. Reversed a

nd rem anded.1-09-2472

40 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to Each C ase) Plea se Use Following For m: Comple te TIT LE of Case THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) 04 CR 28307 ) JOS E R IV ER A, ) ) De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Ho no r ab le

) La wr en ce W. T er r ell, ) Judge Presidin

g. Dock et N o. COURT Opi ni on Filed No. 1-09- 2472 Ap pe llat e C o ur t o f I llino is Fi rs t Di stri ct, F OURTH

Di vi si on April 7, 2011 (Gi ve month, d ay and y ear)
JU STICES JUS TI CE LAVI N de livered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion.

Gallaghe r, P. J., and P ucinsk i, J. , c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. APP EAL from the Circ uit Ct. of Cook Co un t y. Lo wer Co ur t and T rial Jud ge( s) in fo rm indicat ed in t he marg in: The Lawren

ce W. Terrell, Judge Pres idi ng.1-09-2472

41

For APP ELLAN TS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEE S, Smith and Smi th of Chi cago, Joseph Brow n, (of Co unsel) Also add at tor ne ys for third- party appell ants or appellees. Indicate if atto rney represents APPELLA

NTS or APPELLEES and in cl ude atto rney s of counsel . Indic ate the word NONE if n ot represented. A ttorn ey s f or Defend ant -Ap pellant :

Donna Hi ckstein -Foley Foley & Foley 9644 S . Ham

i l ton Av e. Chi cago, IL 60643-1631 773.881.3800 Atto rney s f or Plai ntif f/A ppelle e: An ita A lv arez, Stat e’s A

tt orney Al an Spel lb erg, Peter Fisch

er, ASA’s of Counsel Room 309- Dal ey

Center Chi cago, IL 60602