THIRD DIVISION OCTOBER 31, 2007

1-05-1065 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 01 CR 10553 ) SHAKINA FEAZELL, ) Ho no r ab le ) Jo se ph G. Ka zmie r sk i, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JUSTICE CUN NI NGH AM de livered t he mod ifi ed o pinion o f the court upo n d en i al of petition f or rehearin

g: Fo llowing a jur y tr ial in the ci rcu i t cou rt of Co o k C o un t y, d efe nd an t Sh ak ina Fe az ell ( Fe az ell)
was conv i cted of f i rst-deg ree m urder, armed robb ery, an

d armed v ehi cul ar hi ja cki ng an d sentence d to 35 yea r s’ impr is o nme nt wit h two con cu rrent 1 0-y

ea r ter m s. Thi s a ppe al f ol l ows . F ea

ze l l now argues t hat : ( 1) t he St at e eng age d in pr os ecu t or ial mi sco nduc t by

ma kin g prejudi ci al referen ces to the vi ctim ’s ch il dren and cal l i ng h er a l i ar, m an i pul ator, j unk i e an d con ; (2)the tri

al courter re d by admit t ingt he t est imonial sta t ement s o f co defend ant Dion B anks , in violat ion o f the sixth a mendment
con f ron tation cl au se ; (3 ) d ef

ense cou n se l wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or f ai l i n g to req ue st a si debar or mot ion t he courtf ora new tria

l a fter the State introduced all eged hearsay evi dence; (4) she can

not be convi

cted of both armed

robbery and aggravated vehi cular hi jacki ng because both crim

es arise fr o m o ne sing le act; and (5) def

ense couns el

was in eff ective for f

ai li ng to request specif

ic jury forms f or t he various i nstructi ons of

m urder.1-05-1065

2 BACK GROUND The St at e o ffered t he t est imony of 11 wit ne sse s t o es t ab lish t ha t t he de fen da nt kn o win gly partici pated in t he ar med vehicu lar hijacking , a rmed ro bber y and mur der of Ro se N ewbu rn. Fo r t he purpo se of

simplici t y, mos t of t he t est imony

will be relat ed in t he co nt ext of t he de fendant ’s ac co unt of the events. Shak ina Fe az ell was 25 yea rs o ld and Dion B anks was 40 ye ars old wh

en they me t at a dr ug reh ab i l i tation cl i ni c wh ereb oth wer e und er go ing t re at ment. The pair bega n dat ing while unde rg oing t re at ment for t heir r esp ect ivedrug addictions. Shortly after leavi

ng the drugr eh ab ilit at io n p r o gr am, b oth Fe az el l an d B an ksre l ap se d a

n d b eg an us i n g i l l eg al dr ug s a gai n . F ea ze l l testi f i ed th at a few mont hs after the relati onshi p began , Banks b egan to phy si cally abuse h er. The abuse occurred esp eci al l y wh en Ban ks l acke d suf f i cien t fun ds to purcha se c ocai

ne . On March 23, 2001, Feaze ll

and Ban ks spe nt the

ni gh t at a f ri en d’ s h ous e. B oth g ot hi

gh on dr ug s a nd sle pt o ve rnig ht in a sp are b edroom

of the house. Feazel

l testi fi ed that when sh

e awoke, B ankswa s g one

an d s he wa s l ocked i ns i dethe be droom. F ea

ze l l sa i d that B an

ksl ocked the doo r from the outside an

d lef t he r wi thou t a p hon e, f ood, w ater, or

bat hro om ac ces s. B anks op ened t he door when h e retu rned to t he ho use . Fe aze ll test ifi ed t hat Bank s infor med her t hat t hey wer e go ing to Fo r d C it y Ma ll

t o g et a pr ese nt for Bank s’ niece . H ow ever , Fe aze ll test ifi ed t hat she believed t he two were g oi

ng to sh opl i f t i tem s f rom the mall . The two tr

av el ed to th e m al l i n a stol en Toy ota Co r o ll a; however, Feaze ll testifi ed that she did not know t he vehi cl e was stolen

and that Bank s prev i ousl y clai med th e ca

r was owne d by

his un cle. Banks drove to Ford City Mall a nd parked i n a sp ac e n ex t to agr een D od ge I nt re pid. The1-05-1065

3

Dodge Int re pid wa s o ccu pied byRose Newburn a nd he r two chi l dren , f

i ve -year-ol

d Ty rone N ewb

urn and fou r- year- old Quincy Ne wbur n. Ro se Ne wb ur n w as in t he dr ive r ’s se at wh ile Tyrone an d Quin cy were sit t ing in t he ba ck se at . Fe az ell testifi ed that after

Bank s pa rk ed t he ca r, he sa id t hat t he ca r he wanted wa s r igh t t he r e ( ind ica t ing t he gr ee n I nt r ep id occupied b y the Newburn f

am il y). Ban ks qu ick ly exit ed t he T o yo t a C o r o lla a nd t o ld F ea ze ll to move over fro m the p asse nger ’s se at into t he dr ive r’s se at of

th e T oy ota. Fe az el

l com pl i ed wi th th e req ue st. Ba n ksth en pul l ed out a gun , approached

the Intrepid, an

d shouted“g et the f

uck out [of

] the c ar.”Fe az el

l tes ti f i ed tha t sh e di d n ot know Banks

possessed a gun . As Rose Newb urn was reach

in g in to the back of

the veh ic le , Banks
s hot through the win

dow. Tyrone Newburn, wh o was fi ve y ears old at the tim

e of the i ncident , testifi ed that Banks reach

ed i nsi de the veh

ic le , threw his m

other to the g

round and sh ot her. Rose Newb urn ul tim atel y bl ed to death

be caus e a b

ull et pun ctured a n a rtery i n h er thi gh. B a nkst hen ent er ed t he I nt re pid and dr ove awa y, inst ru ct ing Feaz ell to follow him i n t he Toyota. Both Tyrone and Quin cy New burn were stil

l i n the b ackseat of the ve

hicl e when

Banks dr ove awa y from t he sce ne. Befo re exiting t he mall, Bank s let Quincy and Tyro ne Newb urn out of t he car. The boys ran b ack to where thei

r mother la y i n the parki

ng l ot . Banks an

d Feazel l drove out of the ma ll in the stolen

veh ic le s. Feazel

l testi fi ed that she was af

raid of Banks a nd ha d no choi ce but to follow hi

m i n the Toyota as he told h

er to do. Feazell

followed Ban

ks ea st o n 79 th St re et in the Toy ota Co ro lla. Fea zell st at ed t hat Bank s wa s dr iving at a hi gh rate of speed an

d swerved i

n an d out of traf f i c. Feaz ell tes t ifi

ed t hat she t hen de cided t o c aus e a c ar acc ident in the ho pe o f at t ra ct ing t he pol i ce. Fe az ell rea

r-end ed a w hi te c ar. Jos ep h H arr

i son and his p re gna nt wife Retri na Sm i th were1-05-1065

4

t he occupa

nts of the w hi te car. Harrison tes

tif i ed th at Ban

ks h ad pa sse d hi

s vehi cle b ef

ore Fe az ell hit h i s c ar . A f

ter Fe az el l b um pe d i n to th e r ea r o f h is ve hic le, Ha rr iso n w alk ed t o t he r ea ro f his
v eh i cl e to i ns pe ct the dam

ag e. H arr

i son testifi ed that he attempted to converse wi th Feazel l a bout t he dam age to his v

ehi cl e but Fea zel l ref use d to open h

er wi ndow or respon d to hi s que sti ons. Banks apparently observed the acciden t and dro ve i

n reverse to the sc ene of

the crash
. Harrison testi fi ed that as he tried to speak wi th Feazel l, Ban ks j umpe d out of the Intrepid a nd asked, “[W]h

at the fuck
was goi n g on ? ” H ar ri son wa v ed Ba n ksof f wh i l e tr y i n g to s pe ak wi th Feaze ll, who was in the Corolla. Banks i

nstructed Feazel

l to driv e away and returned

to hi s vehi

cle. Feazel

l f ollowed Banks’ dire ct ions an d drov e awa y f ro m the s cene of t he cr ash. Har riso n t hen r et ur ned t o his ve hicle and followed Feazel l. Ban ks, Fea ze l l , an

d H arr i son al l be ga n to travel

ea st on 79th Stre et. H arr

i son ove rtook Banks a nd Fea zell a t t he i ntersection of 79th Streetand We st er n Avenue . H ar riso n dr ove a longsi de Fe az el

l ’s ve hi cl e a nd be ga n to s hou t at her. Ba

nks’ ve hi cl e w ason th

e other s i deof Feazel l’ s car. Feazel

l i gnored Harrison an

d began to tell Banks w hat Harrison just shouted at her. Ha rrison t es t ified t hat Ba nks sho ut ed “F him an d p ull o ff when t he light t ur ns gr een. ” When t he light t ur ned g re en, Feaz ell dro ve aw ay an d H arr i son con ti nu ed to f ol l ow her v

eh i cl e. H arr i son testifi ed that Ba nks th en drov e a lo ngside his car and s hot at him twice. Har riso n t hen st op ped follow ing Feaz ell and dr ove awa y in the o ppo site dire ct ion. Acco rd ingto Feazel

l, af ter Banks sh

ot at Harrison, Ban

ks caught up with h

er and asked wh

at she was tryi

ng to do . Feazel

l told h im that she was v

ery n ervous and Ban

ks told her to keep up wi

th h i m i n tra f f i c. Fe az el

l testi f i ed th at sh e c on

ti n ue d to f oll ow B an

ksas h e tu rned i n to the pa rki ng l ot of a l i quor store. Bank s exit ed t he Int re pid, t oo k t he ke ys fro m the T oyo t a dr iven by Feaze ll, and1-05-1065

5

entered t he liq uo r s t o re , le aving Fea ze ll in th e T o yot a. Whe n Ba nks left t he liquo r st or e, he returned th e T oy ota’ s k ey s to Feazel

l a nd i nstructed her

to continue

fol lowi ng hi m. F eazel

l f oll owed Banks i n to a gas stati on. Bank s t hen hand ed Fe aze ll Rose New bur n’s pu rse and w allet, t elling her to use Newburn’s cr ed it ca

rd to p ay f or ga s. F ea

ze l l atte m pte d to us e the c red

i t ca rd b ut the tra ns ac ti on was declin ed. Feazel

l c la im s that Banks asked her

if she kn ew of a pl ace wher e he c ou ld “get rid o f the [Intrep i d].” Fe az ell told B an ks that she kn

ew of a ch op shop on the

wes t si de of

Ch i cago. Fe az ell t es t ified t ha t she did not k now the locat ion of a chop shop, but lied to Banks so sh e c oul d r etu rn to that area . Fea

zel l sai d sh e f el t saf er o n the wes t side b ecause h er mother, si ster, and most of her f am i l y l i ve d i n that area . Fe az ell testifi

ed that Banks f

oll owed her on the express

way until he si gnal ed he r to ex

i t. Feazell then ex ited the ex

pressway at Homan A

ven ue. She stopped the vehi cl e at a vacan

t lot at Jack son and Lotus Avenues. Ban ks ap pr o ac he d t he ca ran d in st ruc t ed he rt o o pe n t he do o r . Fe az ell
sa id she ref used to o pen the door and Banks be ca me ir at e. Ac co r din g t o Fe az ell, she t o ld h im she
wa s a fr aid t o o pe n t he do o rbe ca us e h e mig ht hit he r . Fe az ell said she was ner vou s and sca re d and began to ap o lo giz e p r o fus ely

t o Ba nk s. Ba nk s r ep lied : “ [ i]f I wa nt ed t o kill yo u o ran yt hing , I co uld just sh oot you through the wi

ndow.” Feazel

l then opened the car door and Bankshi t her legs several tim es. The two t hen

drove to her m

ot her’s h ouse. When

they arriv ed, no one was at home. The y thenwent t o t he resi

dence of Feazel l’ s si ster, Yo la

nda. Yolan

da testif ie d at tr ia l that Fea z el l wa s smil ingbut app ear ed ne rvo us w hen t hey first gr eet ed e ach o ther. Y olanda stated o n crossexam i na ti on that sh e sp ecul ated wh ethe r Fe aze l l was“h i gh.” Feaz ell tes t ifi

ed t hat she co uld no t t ell her sister that she was in danger because Banks was standi

ng right nex

t t o t hem . Feazel

l testi fi ed that1-05-1065

6

Banks b eg an to b ra g to Y ol an

da ab out th e In trepi d, b ut failed t o ment ion t hat t he ca r w as st olen. Banks al so offered Yolanda a ri de i n the Intrepid, but she d eclined. Bank s a nd F ea ze ll th en le ft Yolan da’s h ome i n separate veh

ic le s as they

had arri ved. Fe az ell t es t ified t ha t t he y dr o ve t o a W hit e C as t le restau rant parkin g lot where Ban

ks attempted t o s ell Ros e Ne wbur n’s ce llular pho ne and cam era. Af ter Banks could n

ot sell the ph

one, he dem anded that Feazel

l take h im to a chop shop. Feazel

l told Ba nks that a chop shop waslocated
on Lake Str eet. As Banks f

ollowed Feazel

l through the st reets, sh

e cra sh ed i n to two c ars

pa rke d on t he street i

n f ront of the G arf i eld Park f i eldhous e. Feazel

l a gai n al le ged that she i ntentiona ll y c aused t he car accidents to at tract the police. The last car that Feazel l h it f li pped over and Fe azell’ s ai r bag depl oyed. Feazel

l’ s car stopped a nd s he crawle d o ut o f t he ca ran d la y o n t he pa ve men t . Fe az ell testifi ed that she was n

ot reall y h urt but had acut on her li p and a bu mp o n he rhe ad
. St ev e K elly ( Ke lly) was out si de the Garfi el d Park fi el dhouse when

he h eard the car crash. He

observed ch

il dren
ru nning towa rd th e acc i den

t si te an d r an t o t he ca r s t o o ffer as sis t an ce . Ke lly app ro ache d Fea zell and cal le d fo reme r ge nc y as sis t an ce . Ba nk s s o o n a rr ive d a nd as ke d F ea ze ll if she wa s o ka y. K ell y testifi ed that he told Ban

ks that an am

bul ance was on the way , but Banks ordered Feaz ell to get up and s aid t hat he wa s go ingto take he r to th e h osp i tal . K el l y sta ted tha t Fe az el l wa s s ay i ng “ no, no, no” as Ban ks pi cked he rup . Ba nk s t he n a sk ed Ke lly f or di re cti on s to th e n

ea re st h osp i tal, a n d b oth Ban ks a nd F eaz el l l ef t the sc ene i

n the In trepid. Fe az ell testifi

ed that as Banks drove h

er away from the accident, she b egan to apologize f or t he cr ash. Bank s beg an t o hit her on t he side o f her fac e and t hen he p ut t he gu n t o he r he ad. She grabbed the

gun but Ban

ks t hr ea t en ed t o sho o t he rif she did not let it go. He then stopped the car1-05-1065

7

and began to beat her. Feaze ll

testifi ed that after Banks b eat her, he told her t hey wer e go ing t o t he Dan R yan Woo ds a t 87t h and t he Da n Ryan Exp re sswa y. At t hat po int, t he po lice bega n pur suing t he Intrepid an

d the car sl am me d in to a pi ll ar. Banks f

le d on f oot and F eaz el

l wasarrested i

n the ca r. Ban ks was later ap

preh ended a nd a rrested
. Banks wastri e d se par at ely befor e a jur y, fou nd gu ilty of first deg re e mur der and g iven the de at h p en alt y. H e d id n o t t es t ify at Fe az ell’ s t r ial. Du r ing Fe az ell’ s t r ial, t he St at e ca lled multiple w itnes ses t o t he st and, including Det ect ive Ed war d Winst ead , w ho t est ifi ed t o t he fo llowing d ur ing dire ct examinat ion: “Q. Wh at is sa id to Shaki

na Fe azell a

t t hat ti me [d ur ing i nterroga tion ]? A. I t old Shak ina

Feaz ell that she w asn’t t elling the whole trut h, that I talked t o [ Bank s] a nd t hat t hey had g one to F ord Ci ty sp ec i f i ca l l y to get a new car, that the car that they were dri vi ng ha d been s t olen, and the y ha d i t too lo ng , it was tim

e to switch cars. She m

ai ntain ed that she did n’t kn o w t he ca rshe wa s inwas st olen. I sa id he sa id she was there wh en -- MS . JO HN SON : Ob

j ec ti on THE COURT: Sustained. MR. RODGERS[:] Are these thin gs t hat you a re t elling to Shak ina Fe az ell? A. Yes.1-05-1065

8 Q. Is she respo ndi

ng to these things? A. She’ s s ay

i ng , no, I didn’t kn o w it wa s s t o len , an d I sa id h e t o ld me you drove– MS. JOH NS ON: Object ion. THE CO URT: Th

at’swh at y

ou sai d to her? THE W ITNESS: Y es, s i

r. THE COURT: Okay, obj ection overruled. MR. ROGERS[:] Go ahead A. I sa id h e s aid t hat you d ro ve him in y ou r Che vy when he st ole t he
car f ro m a ma n i n a gas station, thi s would b e thei r origi nal car, [a] Toy ota at 79th and W estern , ab out th ree we ek s b ef

ore. I s ai d y ou tol d us yo u did n’t kno w he ha d a g un. He sa id yo u d efin it ely knew he had a gu n. MS. JOH NS ON: Object ion. THE COURT: Overrule d. THE WITNE SS: You

were l i vi ng wi th h i m , an d I q uote d h i m , y ou had seen the gun a m il li on tim es. In f act, he kept i

t un de r hi s p i l l ow at n i gh t. MS. JOH NS ON: Object ion. THE COURT: Overrule d MR. ROD GE RS[ :] What do es t he de fendant say t o yo u?1-05-1065

9 A. She s aid, ‘No , I didn’t kno w he ha d t he gu n.’ I said t he o t her t hing is you kn ew y

ou were goi ng th ere to car j ack to get a

new car , t o trade cars . She

sai d, ‘N o, I wen

t there to sh

opl i f t at Ol d Nav

y store.’ She sai d, ‘N o, he s aid he

wasgoi ng to get a ne

w car ,’ an

d I s aid , ‘H owwas he go ing

to get the ca r? ’ I sa i d, ‘ W ha t woul d y ou do i f you were in a car and s ome g uy said g et ou t and g ive me the car? ’ Sh e said, ‘I wo uldn’tdo it. ’ I s aid, ‘Ho w abo ut if y ou had a gun, ’ and she said, ‘I wo uld do i

t.’ S he sa i d, ‘ W he n we g ot t o t he pa rk ing lot ,’ s he said, ‘It was a green In

trepid, and he

sai d I’m goi ng to take that ca r,’ and she sa id he pu lled ove r ne xt t o it , a nd she s aid , ‘I sa w t wo lit t le bo ys in the back sea t. I was th

i nki ng, boy, I hope they don’ t get hur

t.’ So I sai d, ‘How were they go ing t o g et hur t ?’ She said, ‘well, I didn’t kn owhe h ad a gun.’ A

nd I asked her, ‘W

hat were y

ou going to do wit h t he ca r, ’ and she sa id, ‘We wer e go ing t o t ake t he car and d rive to the west side and try to sell it for money

for drugs’ Q. Af ter she tells y

ou t hat, did y

ou ask her f

or anythi ng? A. She was requested [ sic ] if she wo uld gi v e v i de o or a t l ea st a courtre po rt ed s t at ement o f wh at she jus t t o ld u s, an d s he sa id she would. Q. And did s he eve nt ually give one ? A . No, sh e c ha ng ed he r m i nd an d de ci de d n ot to. Q. One last thin

g, at on e p oi nt, di d s he tal k a bou t be i ng af rai d of Di on1-05-1065

10 Banks? A. T he ver y last t hingth at sh e s ai d, I aske d h er wh y sh e stay ed wi th hi m . She sai d, ‘W el l , I was af raid of hi m .’ Q. This is after he h

ad done what he h

ad done? A. Y es, t hat was pr oba bly the last par t of o ur co nver sat ion. Q. Did s he say when it was that she

began [to b e] a

f rai d of Di on Banks? A. Wh en sh e got t o t he west si

de. Q. T o the we st s i deof

Ch i cago? A. Yes. MR. R ODGER S: Nothi

ng f urthe r, Jud ge.” Th e j ury ul ti mate l y con vi cte d F ea ze l l of first deg re e mur der , a rmed ro bber y and aggravated veh ic ula rhijac kin g. Fe az ell rec ei

ve d two c onc

urren t 10- yea r ter m s c ons ecuti

ve to a35 y ea r ter m f or m urder. F eaz el

l now a ppea l s her con vi cti on. PROSECUT ORIAL MISCONDUCT Fe az ell first alleges pr os ecu t or ial mi sco nduc t base d o n cer t ain st at ement s made by the pros ecution

duri ng th e tri al
. A f

ter ex am i n i n g th e p ost trial m oti on , w e f

i n d th at F ea ze l l f ai l ed to pr o pe r ly pres erve this i ssue f

or appea l
. A def endan t’s fai lure to raise a

n i ssuei n a wri tten moti on f or a new trial general ly constitutes a w aiv er o f t ha t iss ue ; ho we ve r , t he pla in- er r o rdo ct r ine is applie d wh erethe evi

den ce is cl osel y ba l anced or s

ubs tantial ri ghts are af f ected. Pe o ple v. Ma cFar land , 228 I ll. A pp. 3d 1 07, 118 , 59 2 N .E.2 d 47 1, 4 79 ( 199 2). “ Th e p l ai n- err ordo ct rine *** allows a r eviewing1-05-1065

11

courtto reach a f

orfei ted issue aff ectin g substantial

righ ts in two circums

tances.” Peop l e v . He

rron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 1 78, 830 N. E. 2d 4 67, 474 (2 005 ). “First , w her e t he ev ide nc e in a c as e is so clo se ly ba la nced that t he j ury' s guilty

verdict may

have resul

ted from the error and not the eviden ce, a re viewing cou

rt m ay c o nsid er a fo rfeit ed e rr or in or der t o p re clude an ar gument t hat an innoc ent pe rs on was wrongl

y c onvicted.” Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 178 , 8 30 N .E .2 d at 474 . “S eco nd, wher e t he
err oris so ser iou s t hat t he de fendant was denied a su bst ant ial right , a nd t hus a fair t rial, a re viewing courtma y c onsi der a forfe ited error in order to preserve the in tegr ity of the j ud i cial

proces s.” Herron , 215 Il

l . 2d at 17 9, 830 N .E.2d at 47 4. Under the pla in -error test, we mus

t see whether the ev

ide nce was so closel y b al anced

t hat t he jury's guil ty ve rdict re su l ted f rom th e p ros ecutor ’s

com men ts an d n o t t he ev ide nc e p r es en t ed at t r ial. Fe az ell co nt end s t hat the State engaged in prosecuto rial

mi sconduct by

la bel in g her a l ia r, junki e, man i pul ator, and con an

d by referen ci ng Rose Newb

urn’s ch il dren dur ing its closing argumen ts. Dur ingt he t r ial, t he St at e p r es en t ed ev ide nc e d emo nst r at ing t ha t Fe az ell l i ed to the police about her id en t it y, was

a con vi cted shopl i f ter, and was a

n adm itted drug ab

us er. Testi

mony wa s p res en

ted f rom several peo ple who witnessed Feazell’s par t icipat ion in t he cr

i m i n al ac ti v i ty th rough out th e stre ets of Chicag o. Feaz ell herse lf test ifi ed t hat she li

ed to t he polic e ab out h

er i den ti ty , w en t to F ord Ci ty Ma ll t o sho plift , an d h ad a d rug ab us e p r o ble m. Fe az ell a lso t es t ified t ha t she did nothave a ny knowle dge of Ban

ks’ pl ans to steal

Newburn’s ve

hi cl e a nd tha t he r f ea r of Ba nks p rev en ted he r f rom leaving hi m a nd notif yi ng the poli

ce as they traveled a

roun d the c i

ty. Th e State’ s com

men ts are supported by the ev

ide nce produced att rial, includ ing t est imony given by Feaze ll. Even a ssu ming
so me im propriety, the ev

ide nceis not so clos ely balanced t hat t he jur y wo uld ha ve co nvic t ed Fe az ell1-05-1065

12

as a resu lt of t he pro secut or ’s commen ts and not the eviden

ce presented at trial. Thus, the i ss ueof prosec utoria l m i scon duct i s wa

i ve d un der the pl ai n-e rror doctri

ne . DI ON B ANKS’ ST ATE MEN TS IN TR ODU CE D T HRO UGH WINS TE AD Fe az ell next co nt ends t hat she w as d enied t he r ight t o c onfr ont Bank s whe n his te st imony was impr o pe r ly

allowed i

nto evide nce through Detectiv

e Wi nstead. At i ssue i s whether W in stead’ s t est imony contain ed im properly adm itted hearsay

evi dence t hat violat ed Fe aze ll’s sixth amend ment rights. Dur ing t he trial, W i n ste ad testi f i ed ab out th e c on ten ts o f an i n ter rog ati on se ss i on h e h ad wi th Feazell while sh e was in police custody. Wi

nstead t estifi

ed that he confronted Feazell with Banks’ sta tem en ts aft er Fe az ell li

ed about her ident ity, minimi zed her ro le in the c rime, a nd de nied having pri or kn owl edgeof the vehicular hi

jacki ng or Banks’ poss ession of a gun. Over defense co unsel’s general obje ctions, W

in stead testifi

ed to st atemen

ts give n by Ba nk s u nd er int er r o ga t io n. Fe az ell argues t ha t t ho se st at eme nt s w er e d ev as t at ing t o he rde fen se . Wins t ea d’ s t es t imo ny inc lu de d sta tem en ts t hat implica t ed Fea ze ll in th e o rig inal t heft of t he Toy ota C orol l a, wh i ch th e p ai r u se d to dr iveto F ord

Ci ty Ma ll. We no t e t hat t he t heft of the Toy ota was n ot at is sue i n the tri al . The

re were also statements f

rom Dion Banks a

ll egi ng that Fea

ze ll k nowin

gly partici pated in the veh ic ula r hijacking of the Intrepid a

nd ha d knowle dge of the gun that he used i n the cri me . Feazel

l a rgues that she is entitled to a new trial

because Wi nstead’s testi

mony contain ed i mproperl y a dm it t ed hearsay sta tem en ts that v i ola ted h er si xth am endm en t rig hts. I n su mmar y, F ea ze ll

argues that Banks testif

ie d agai nst her th rough Wi nstead an d sh e had n o opportuni

ty to conf ront Ba nks
. Fe az ell points out that t he trial court erredwhen

it al lowed Detectiv

e Wi nstead to tes ti f y to t he su b sta n ti v e c on ten ts o f h i s d i sc us si on wi th h er du ri n g i n ter rog ati on b ec au se th e state men ts1-05-1065

13

vi olated the confrontation cl

ause of the si

xth am endm ent and the preceden

t se t by Cra wfo rd v. W ashi ng ton , 541 U .S. 36, 15 8 L. E d. 2d 17 7, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004) . Feazel l c ontends that Wi nstead ’s t est imony

wa s s ub sta nti ve an d doe s n ot qualif y as a nonh

earsay statement or as a hearsay
exce pt ion. Fea

zel l argue s tha

t Ban ks’ statem

en t was the b asis f

or the State’ s the ory

of ac cou n tab i l i ty and absen t t he statemen

t, all ot her evi dence is i nsuf fi ci ent to pr ove her knowl

edge of Banks’ actions. Fe az ell cla ims t ha t he ro wn ad miss io n o n t he wit ne ss st an d a nd cr iminal h ist o ry o nly pr ove d t hat she sho plift ed to suppo rt her dru g habit. Without the hear say evi dence, Fea zell

argu es the S tat e’s
asse rt ions regardin

g her knowledge of the cri me and gun are uncorroborat ed by

any ot her evi dence. Fe az ell argues th at B an

ks ’ s tate men ts we r e s ub st an t ially p r eju dic ial a nd t hu s d en ied he ra fa ir t r ial. The State argues t ha t t his is su e is wa ive d b ec au se it wa s no t pr o pe r ly preserved f

or appeal and, in the al ternative, that the statemen ts quali fy as ei ther nonhea

rsay statements or hearsay exceptions. The State fi

rst argue s t ha t t his issue s hou ld be r eviewe d und er a plain- er ro r d oc t rine because th e def

ense f ai l ed to pr es er v e th e iss ue i n a p ost trial moti on . U

n der the p l ai

n er ror t est, t he St at e as ser t s t hat t he evide nce is no t clos ely balanced and t hat t her e wa s su ffi cient evi dence at tr ia l demo nst ra t inghow Feazel l was account able for Bank’s actions. The State argues that t he wi de scope of Feaze ll ’s i

nvol vem ent was i ll ustrated t hrough

var iou s wit nesse s, includ ing Det ect ive W

instead’s t es t imo ny. Wi

nstead testifi ed t o t he co nver sat ion he ha d wit h Feaz ell in which she admit t ed ha ving knowle dge of

Ba nks’ i nte nt to st eal

the vi ctim ’s car b efore the comm encem ent of the cri

me . Wi nstead als o t es t ified t ha t Fe az ell s t at ed t ha t she sa w t he t wo sma ll bo ys in the vict im’s car a nd “h oped th at n

o on e g ot h

ur t,”b ut al so s ai

d th at th ey weregoi n g to t ake t he ca r a nd

wh at ev er wa s in it
. Various State witness es testif ie d regar di

n g F ea ze l l ’s i n v ol v em en t i n th e cri me th rough out i ts1-05-1065

14

various stages. T he Stat e also ar gue s t hat t he evide nce p ro ves t hat Feaz ell was p re sent dur ing t he
com m i ss i on of t he cr ime without oppo si ng or disa pprovin g it. The State also off

ered evi dence that Fe az ell accepted the contents of the vi ctim ’s purse an

d attempted to use her cred it car d at a gas st at ion. The State cont ends that the evi dence dem

onstrates t hat

t his case is not clos ely balanced and f ai l s to meet th e req

ui re m en ts o f th e p l ai n -e rror test. The Sta te al so argues that Detect iv e Wi nstead’s testi

mony fal ls under the pol i cei nv es ti ga ti on exce ption t o t he he ar sa y rul e. T he S t at e s ays th at W i n ste ad ’s sta tem en ts wereus ed

to de mon strate t he progression of the i

nve stigati on. The S tate argues t hat Wi nstead’s testi

mony dem onstrates Feaz ell’s shift in po sitio n and p ro per ly f alls unde r t he po lice invest igat ion exc ept ion. Lastly , the Stat e contends that Wi nstead’s s tatements al so are nonhearsa y s tatements used f ort he p ur po se o f sho wing t he e ffe ct on the li stener’s m

in d (Feazel l) or to show why the l

is tener su bse qu en t ly

acted the wa y s h e d

i d. Th e S tate

poi n ts o ut th at W i n ste ad testi f i ed th at prior to Feazell’s bei ng confronted with Banks’ statements, she lied ab o ut he ride nt it y and minimize d h er r o le in the cr im es. Feaze ll ’s shift in

position and trut hf

uln ess about her in

volv em ent only occurred after she wa s c on f

ron ted wi th Banks’ statements. The State argues that t he statemen ts were nonhearsa

y st at eme nt s a nd pr o pe r ly ad mit t ed at t r ial. T his is sue i s revi

ewed un de rt he pla in- er r o rdo ct r ine be ca us e it wa s no t pr o pe r ly preserved f orappe al i n a p ost t rial mot ion. As pr eviou sly sta t ed, t he plain- er ro r d oc t rine allo ws a re viewing courtto consider a forfe ited i ssuei n ord er to pr ese rve t he inte gr ity o f the judicial pr oc ess w her e t he
err oris so serious that the defe

ndan t was denied a subs

tantial ri ght, a nd th us a f ai r tri al
. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 178, 830 N. E.2d at 474.1-05-1065

15

“The Si xth A men dm en t’s Con f ron tation C l au se

[of the Uni ted St ates Constitution] provi des that ‘[ i]n all crim

inal pr os ecu t ions, t he ac cus ed s hall enjoy the right
.. ., t o be co nfro nt ed w ith t he witne ssesagai

nst hi m.’” Craw f

ordv. W ashi

ng ton , 541 U.S. 36, 42, 158 L. Ed. 2d 1 77, 187, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1 359 (2 004). The confrontat ion cl ause applies to witnesses who bear testimony agains t t he accuse d. Craw f

ord , 541 U.S. at 51, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 192, 124 S. Ct. at 1364. Where testim onia l
ev i den ce i s a t i ss ue , the s i xth am endm ent dem andsunavai

lab il ity an d a prior o ppor tunity f

or cr ossexaminat ion. Craw f

ord , 541 U.S. at 68, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203, 124 S. Ct. at 1374. Where testim onia l statements are at i ssue, the only in dic ium of relia bi li ty suf fi ci ent to sat is fy

constitutional

dem andsis t he o ne t he Co nst it ut io n a ct ua lly provi des : con f rontation. Craw f

ord , 541 U.S. at 68-69, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 2 03 , 12 4 S . C t. at 1374. “An a ccuser who m

akes a f orma l statem en t to govern

men t off i cers b ea rstesti mon y i n a s ense th at a pers on wh

o ma kesa ca sua

l rem ark to an ac quai

ntan ce doe s n ot.” Craw f ord , 541 U.S. at 51, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 19 2, 1 24 S. Ct. at 136 4. Ho weve r, an exc ept ion t o t he hearsay rule al lows an off ic er to testify

for the pur

pose o f est abl

is hi ng how the i

nve stigati on was conductedand can

not be used to place i

nto evide nce t he su bs tan ceof an y out-of -cou rt sta tem en t or co nver sat ions off

ered f or the truth

of thei r conten ts. People v . Jura , 352 Ill . App. 3d 1080, 1086, 817 N. E.2 d 9 68 , 97 4- 75 (2 00 4) . “ [T] h e den i al of th e op por tun i ty to cross- exam

in e an adverse witness do es no t fit wit hin

the l i m i ted cate gory

of c onsti tution al errors that are deem

ed pre j udicial i n every case.” De law ar e v . Va n Ar sd all , 475 U.S. 673, 682, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674, 685, 106 S . Ct. 1431, 1437 (1986 ). An

ot herwi se val

id c onviction sh

ould not be set

as ide if t he r ev iew ing co ur t may c o nfid en t ly
sa y, on the

whole record, that the c onsti

tution al error was ha rm l ess bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. Van Ar sd all , 475 U .S. at 681, 8 9 L. Ed . 2d at 68 4, 106 S . Ct. at 1436
.1-05-1065

16

“[A] police off

ic er may reconstruct t he steps taken i n a cri me ’s i nve stigati on and m

ay des cr ibe t he event s lead ing up t o t he defendant’s ar r es t wh er e s uc h t es t imo ny is n ec es sa ry ** * t o fully e xp lain the Stat e’s cas e to t he j ury.” People v . Tro tt er , 254 Ill . App. 3d 514, 527, 626 N.E. 2d 1104, 1112 (1993 ). “[T]h

ereis a dist inctio n bet wee n an o ffi cer t est ify ing t o t he fact t hat he spoke t o a witness withoutdi sc l osi

ng the con ten ts of tha t con ve rs ati on and a n officer t est ify

ing t o t he co nt ent s o f the conversation.” Trot ter , 254 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 527, 626N.E.2d a

t 1112-13
. “Un

de r th e i nv es ti ga ti on procedu re exce ption , the off

ic er’s testim

ony m ust be l im ited to show how the in

vestigation was conducted, n ot to pla

ce into evidenc e t he su bst ance of a ny out -o f-co ur t st at ement or co nver sat ions f orth e pur pos e of estab l i sh i n g th e tr uth of th ei r c on ten ts .” Trot ter , 254 Ill . App. 3d at 527, 626 N.E.2d at 1 113 . “ If

such tes ti mon y i s pre sen

ted, t he t rial co ur t must instr uct t he jur y that t he t est imony wa s i ntr oduc ed f ort he limi t ed p ur po se o f explaining what cau sed t he police to act and that they were not to accept the statement as true.” Trot ter , 254 Ill . App. 3d at 528, 626 N.E .2dat 1113 (1993 ). Anout -of-co ur t st at ement may also be intr od uce d t o p ro ve t he st at ement ’s effect on t he listener ’s m

i nd or of f ered to sh ow wh y the l i stener su bs eque ntl y acted as he or sh

e di d. P e op le v. Thomas , 296 Ill . App. 3d 489, 499, 694 N.E.2d 1 068, 10 75 (19 98). Thi s ty peof sta tem en t i s n ot hearsay an d is ad miss ible i

n a tria l
. People v . Thomas , 296 Ill . App. 3d at 499, 694 N.E .2d at 1075. W e find t ha t int his case , t he t rial co ur t violat ed Fe aze ll’s right t o c onfr ont at ion u nder t he sixth a mendment and t he pr ece dent set in Cra wf ord v . W ashi

ng ton b y ad m i tti n g B an ks ’ c om men ts into evidenc e t hro ugh t he t est imony of De t ect ive Winste ad. The Su pr eme Co ur t held in Craw f ord
v. W ashi ng ton t hat “[a] n acc use r who ma kesa f orma l statem en t to govern

men t off i cers be ars1-05-1065

17

testi monyin a s en se that a per son w ho m akes a ca sua l rem ark to an acqu ai ntan ce doe s n

ot.” Craw f ordv. W ashi

ng ton , 541 U.S. at 51, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 192, 124 S. Ct . at 1364. Banks’ sta tem en ts we r e g ar ne r ed du r ing his in t er r o ga t io n by Win st ea d a nd r ela yed t o Fe az ell d ur in g her i nte rrog ati on se ss io n w it h Wins t ea d. Ba nk s’ st at eme nt s a r e c lea r ly testi monial i n n ature. The Uni

ted Stat es Suprem

e C ourt h ascl ea rl y sa i d that th i s ty peof sta tem en t ca nn ot be intr od uce d ag ainst t he defend ant wh

en th e def ense h as n ot h ad th e op por tun i ty to co n f ron t th e ou t-of -c our t de cl aran t. Craw f ord , 541 U.S. at 68, 158 L. E d. 2d a t 203 , 1 24 S . C t . a t 137 4. The ou t of c ou rt dec larant must be co nfro nt ed by t he de fen se t o yield so me ind icia of re l i ab i l i ty. Craw f

ord , 541 U. S. at 68, 1 58 L. Ed . 2 d at 203 , 1 24 S . C t . a t 137 4. Bank s’ st at ement s ar e t he st at ement s o f one co defend ant under t he pressure o f i

nterro gation against

another codef en da n t. W i th out a n y th i n g m ore , B an ks ’ s tate men ts be ar no in di cia of rel i ab i l i ty. Banks’ statements also do not qualif y un der the p olice inv estigation exception because Det ect iveWi

nstead testif

ie d to the substantive

co nt en t s o f t he st at eme nt s ma de d ur ing t he inter ro gat ion. Altho ugh t he co ur t held in People v . Tro tt er , 254 Ill . App. 3d 514, 527, 626 N.E.2d 1104, 1112 (1993), t hat “a polic e off ic er may reco nstru ct t he step s tak en in a crime’si

nv esti gation,” t he courtdist inctly held t hat t he of f i cer’ s te sti

mony m us t be l i m i ted to sh ow h ow the i nv es ti ga ti on was co nd uc t ed an d n o t pl ac e in t o ev id en ce t he su bs t an ce o f a ny out-of -cou rt sta tem en t or co nver sat ions f

ort he pu r po se o f es t ab lishin g t he t rut h o f t he ir contents. Had Wi

nstead m erely stated that he confronted Feaze ll with B anks’ statement, then h e would h ave b een wi

thin the boundaries of the exce ption. How ever, he

went m uc h f urth er. He , i n e f f ec t, pl ac ed Ba nks’ ve rs i on of t he ev en ts and Fe az ell’ s a lleg ed kn o wle dg e o f t ho se ev en t s s qu ar ely befo re t he jury. T her e we re also no limiting1-05-1065

18

instr uct ions fr o m t he co ur t . T he jur y wa s s imp ly given Ban

ks’ ve rsio n of t he eve nt s t hro ugh t he t est imony of W i n ste ad . Th

e s ub sta n ti v e state men ts wer e inadmissible hear say and sho uld neve r ha ve be en al l owed. We al so reject the State’s contention that Bank’s statements were used

to prove the eff

ect of t he statements on Fe azell’ s m in d or o ff ered to show why F eazel

l s ubsequen tly actedas she did. The Sta te has f ai l ed to es tab l i sh

how Feaz ell’s behavio r, act ions o r c oo per at ion cha nged aft er hear ing Banks’ statements. Al

l the State has dem

onstrated is that Feazel

l a nswered questions pres ented

to her during the i

nterro gation pro cess. Fe az ell ar gue s t hat since D ion wa s no t subjec t t o c ro ss- examinat ion, t he ad miss io n o f his st at ement violated the conf rontat ion c la

use. We agree. Further, we fi nd that the error was so serious as to deny h

er the fun dam ental righ t t o a fai r trial . Indeed, Banks’ testim ony was a powerful force f orthe Stat e and was

an i ntegral part of thei

r case. Thus, wefi

nd that the trial

court has com

mi tt ed pla in er r o run de rt he do ct r ine se t fo r t h in Herron . The trial court ’s adm

is si on of Ban

ks’ testim onia l sta tem en ts against Fe az ell t hr o ug h D et ec t ive Wins t ea d fe ll sq ua r ely w it hin t he rulin g o ut lined in Herron . Th

e state men ts served as di re ct i m pe ach men t testi mon y to F ea ze l l ’s v er si on of th e ev en ts and severel

y c ontradicted what

she told the j ury. A

lthough t he St at e c o nt en ds t ha t t his w as mer ely harml ess error, its argum

ent is not convin

ci ng an d fai ls to adequately

address the c onst itutional
argu men ts rai se d b y Fe az el l i n h er as se rti on th at s h e h ad a ri gh t to confront Banks . Wi

thout Banks’ t es t imo ny, there was no o ther evidence that cont radicted Feazell ’s version of the events. T hi s i s pa r t icu lar ly

da ma gin g b ecause Fe azell was convi cted of knowin

g murder an

d, as the State all

but conceded durin g oralar gument s, no ot her dire ct evidenc e wa s o ffered by the Stat e establ is hi ng that1-05-1065

19

Fe az ell knew

Ban ks pos ses sed

a gun . Banks’ sta

tem en ts we r e u nr elia ble as su bst an t ive ev ide nc e b ec au se Fe az ell d id not have t he oppor tunity

to confront hi

m. Thi s i s the exact t ype

of testim onia l st at ement th at Craw f

ordai m s to pr event from

bei ng i ntroduced aga inst a defend ant . B anks ’ st at ement falls squa re ly within the four
corne rs of Craw f

ordand the adm

is si on of the statemen

t was er ro r. This er ro r is su ch t hat t o p re ser ve t he in tegr ity of the judi cial

pro cess, wem

us t rev ers e F ea ze l l ’s con vi cti on a nd rem an d f ora n ew t r ial. In l i ght of our rul i ng on thi s i ssue, we n

eed n ot reach the othe r i ssues ra i sed by the def endan t. Reversed a

nd rem anded. GREIM AN and THEIS, J

J., con cur.