Opinion ID: 2218871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of McCullough's Shooting

Text: Defendant first argues the evidence of his participation in McCullough's death was inadmissible. The State responds that defendant has waived this issue for review by failing to object at the trial level. The State notes that after it filed its motion to allow other-crimes evidence, defense counsel objected only to the introduction of the 1987 meat theft. Then, after the trial court granted the State's motion as to both crimes, defense counsel stated: Judge, I can understand    the one alleged murder [McCullough's], but the thefts also, your ruling applies there too? Issues not objected to at the trial level are waived for review. ( People v. Enoch (1988), 122 Ill.2d 176, 186, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124.) However, the waiver rule is not without exception. Supreme Court Rule 615(a) provides that this court may review an issue not properly preserved for review as plain error where (1) the evidence is closely balanced, or (2) the error is of such magnitude that the defendant was denied a fair trial. 134 Ill.2d R. 615(a); People v. Ward (1992), 154 Ill.2d 272, 294, 181 Ill.Dec. 884, 609 N.E.2d 252. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the evidence here is not closely balanced. Just prior to the crime, defendant told Truell that he was going to hit McCullough's drug house on 43rd and Princeton. Defendant later confessed his killing of Hale and Welch to four persons, each of whom testified at trial. Moreover, People's exhibit number one, the gun that killed McCullough, matched the characteristics of the gun that killed Hale. Defendant admitted killing McCullough, and Truell testified that defendant had People's exhibit number one with him the night of the murders. Also, though not a positive identification, defendant was identified as being of the same height, complexion, and physical build of the person seen coming out of the drug house after shots were heard. Finally, defendant had the motive to kill Hale and Welch, McCullough's employees, to seek revenge on McCullough. The evidence against defendant was overwhelming. We feel compelled, however, to address defendant's arguments because the evidence, if improperly admitted, could have denied defendant of a fair trial. See People v. Smith (1992), 152 Ill.2d 229, 255-56, 178 Ill.Dec. 335, 604 N.E.2d 858. We first note that the evidence concerning defendant's participation in McCullough's death was relevant to defendant's motive to kill Hale and Welch. Such evidence tends to show that defendant still harbored feelings of revenge against McCullough after being released from prison on the 1987 meat theft conviction. This information was important because defendant testified at trial that he did not bear any ill will towards McCullough or plan to seek revenge after being released from prison. The fact that defendant did go after McCullough and succeeded in killing him refuted defendant's trial testimony, and further supported Arch's testimony that defendant did plan to seek revenge on McCullough. Defendant's bitter feelings towards McCullough thus make it more likely that defendant would have robbed McCullough's place of business and killed two of his employees in the process. Defendant also argues that evidence of his participation in McCullough's death was inadmissible because it was subsequent to the deaths of Hale and Welch. This court has previously noted, however, that when `the question is whether the defendant's conduct evidenced a peculiar plan to commit a particular offense,    we see no reason to exclude conduct occurring subsequently.' People v. Bartall (1983), 98 Ill.2d 294, 312, 74 Ill.Dec. 557, 456 N.E.2d 59, quoting People v. Lehman (1955), 5 Ill.2d 337, 343, 125 N.E.2d 506. Defendant's participation in McCullough's death was also relevant and admissible to link defendant to People's exhibit number one, the gun which was of a type that killed Hale. Other-crimes evidence is admissible to show that a defendant had access to guns similar to the one used in the charged crime. ( People v. Adams (1985), 109 Ill.2d 102, 122, 92 Ill.Dec. 528, 485 N.E.2d 339.) Moreover, this court has held that evidence of a later shooting is relevant and admissible to prove the defendant committed an earlier shooting. ( People v. Richardson (1988), 123 Ill.2d 322, 123 Ill.Dec. 908, 528 N.E.2d 612.) This court stated in Richardson: The evidence of the April 5, 1980, shooting clearly tended to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the April 1, 1980, murder, in light of the evidentiary links between the two crimes. Expert testimony at trial established that the same gun fired the bullet which killed [the first victim] and the bullet which wounded [the second victim]. ( Richardson, 123 Ill.2d at 339, 123 Ill.Dec. 908, 528 N.E.2d 612.) The same rationale applies here. The evidence of defendant's shooting and killing McCullough links him to the gun that likely killed Hale. Defendant admitted killing McCullough, but denied using People's exhibit number one to do so. However, expert testimony revealed that the bullet that killed McCullough was fired from People's exhibit number one. We finally note that evidence of McCullough's killing was relevant and admissible to show the circumstances of defendant's arrest. Evidence of other crimes may be admissible to show the context of defendant's arrest. ( People v. McKibbins (1983), 96 Ill.2d 176, 183, 70 Ill.Dec. 474, 449 N.E.2d 821.) Evidence of defendant's arrest for killing McCullough was relevant to show how the police became aware of Truell and Rico, who were both with defendant when the shooting occurred. The existence of Truell and Rico is important because defendant confessed to both of them about the murders of Hale and Welch. Moreover, Rico led the police to defendant's gun, People's exhibit number one. While defendant argues that all this information, motive, defendant's link to the gun, and evidence concerning how the gun and witnesses were located, could have been admitted without mentioning McCullough's killing, we note that defense counsel did not ask the court to limit the State's introduction of evidence at trial. Any such argument has been waived for review. ( Enoch, 122 Ill.2d at 186, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124.) We further find no plain error here. Any such information, without evidence of McCullough's shooting, would have kept critical evidence from the jury, such as the positive identification of the firearms expert which linked defendant to the gun, People's exhibit number one, that killed McCullough.