Opinion ID: 3134354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ill 2d 401, 435 (1993) (any permissible kind of impeaching matter

Text: may be developed on cross-examination to test the credibility of a witness). According to the State, it was attempting to impeach defendant's mitigation testimony, that remorse was the motive for her guilty plea, with her prior inconsistent statements from the suppression hearing. We agree with the State's argument only to the extent that it was proper to impeach defendant with her prior inconsistent testimony from the suppression hearing. A defendant's constitutional rights are not violated when a defendant is cross-examined as to a prior inconsistent statement. See Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 408-09, 65 L. Ed. 2d 222, 226-27, 100 S. Ct. 2180, 2182 (1980); People v. Adams, 109 Ill. 2d 102, 119-20 (1985). It is also well established that a defendant's testimony in conjunction with his or her motion to suppress evidence can be used to impeach a defendant's testimony at trial. See People v. Sturgis, 58 Ill. 2d 211, 216 (1974). We adhere to these principles. Here, however, the State exceeded the bounds of simply impeaching defendant with prior inconsistent testimony. Rather, the State used defendant's actual motion to suppress against her by suggesting that its mere filing was itself evidence of a lack of remorse on the part of defendant. A defendant's exercise of a constitutional right is not permissible impeachment evidence. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91, 98, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 2245 (1976) (violation of due process when defendant's silence following Miranda warnings is used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial). Moreover, the mere filing of the motion to suppress her confession did not contradict defendant's claim that remorse was the motive behind her guilty plea. The motion to suppress had no correlation to defendant's remorse. Defense counsel employed the motion to suppress to address an issue of law, namely, the admissibility of defendant's confession as evidence. Consequently, the prosecutor, in arguing the motion to suppress, introduced evidence that neither involved an inconsistent statement nor was relevant for impeachment purposes. See Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 449. As such, the prosecutor here did not merely utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225, 28 L. Ed. 2d 1, 4, 91 S. Ct. 643, 645-46 (1971). We therefore reject the State's claim that the filing of the motion to suppress was properly used to impeach defendant's testimony. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing cross-examination as to defendant's filing of a motion to suppress. See Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 435; People v. Peeples, 155 Ill. 2d 422, 492 (1993). With regard to the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, the State first contends that any challenge to those comments has been waived because defendant neither objected to them at trial nor included them in her post-sentencing motion. See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (1988). As in Szabo, however, we find that fundamental fairness requires that the strict waiver rule be relaxed in this case and that the prosecutor's closing arguments be recognized as plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights. See Szabo, 94 Ill. 2d at 362; People v. Green, 74 Ill. 2d 444, 450 (1979). Aside from its waiver argument, the State claims that these comments were proper because the prosecutor merely challenged defendant's proclaimed motives for pleading guilty and highlighted evidence showing defendant was not remorseful. In support of its position, the State refers to the general rule that challenging the credibility of a defendant and his or her theory of defense is proper in closing argument when there is evidence justifying the challenge. See Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d at 444. Here, according to the State, its challenge to defendant's claim of remorse was justified given defendant's testimony during the suppression hearing. We do not dispute that the prosecutor was permitted to challenge defendant's credibility regarding her motive for pleading guilty by commenting on defendant's apparent lack of remorse as evidenced by her testimony at the suppression hearing. The prosecutor, however, went far beyond that permissible commentary to suggest that defendant's exercise of a constitutional right be used as aggravation evidence against her. The prosecutor's comments were clearly intended to direct the jury's attention to defendant's attempt to enforce her right to silence. See People v. Franklin, 135 Ill. 2d 78, 101 (1990); People v. Burton, 44 Ill. 2d 53, 55-57 (1969). This improper commentary on defendant's exercise of a constitutional right resulted in substantial prejudice to defendant at the sentencing hearing by casting defendant's assertion of her right in an unfavorable light to the jury. Based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that defendant's filing of a motion to suppress was irrelevant both substantively and for impeachment purposes at the sentencing hearing. The prosecutor improperly used defendant's constitutional right to silence against her by introducing into evidence her motion to suppress, which was intended to enforce that right. Defendant was prejudiced by the prosecutor's actions and deprived of a fair capital sentencing hearing because the sentencing jury was permitted to rely on improper evidence and comments. Accordingly, we vacate defendant's death sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing. Defendant also raises other challenges to her capital sentencing hearing and to the constitutionality of the Illinois death penalty statute. Because we have concluded that defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing, we address only those alleged errors which are likely to arise again on remand. See People v. Simms, 143 Ill. 2d 154, 173 (1991). B. Jury Selection Defendant contends that she was denied a fair capital sentencing hearing because the trial court allowed each side only 10 peremptory challenges. The record reveals that, after defendant requested a jury for the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor informed the trial judge that he thought each side should receive 10 peremptory challenges. The trial judge accepted this representation by the prosecutor and allowed each side 10 peremptory challenges. Defense counsel did not object to the number of peremptory challenges allotted. During the jury selection, defendant used nine peremptory challenges before agreeing on a 12-member jury. Defendant subsequently utilized her last peremptory challenge to exclude one of the two alternate jurors. Defendant now claims that she was entitled to 14 peremptory challenges pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 434(d) (134 Ill. 2d R. 434(d)). Defendant further claims that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing her only 10 peremptory challenges. As a result, defendant asserts that her sentence of death should be vacated and the cause remanded for the proper selection of a sentencing jury. The State concedes that the trial court erred in allotting defendant only 10 peremptory challenges. We agree. Supreme Court Rule 434(d) provides, in pertinent part, that [a] defendant tried alone shall be allowed 14 peremptory challenges in a capital case. 134 Ill. 2d R. 434(d). It is thus clear that the trial court erred in this case by allowing defendant only 10 peremptory challenges. See People v. Daniels, 172 Ill. 2d 154 (1996). On remand, defendant should be allowed the proper number of peremptory challenges. Because we have already determined that defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing on another ground, we need not address whether the trial court's actions as to the number of peremptory challenges amounted to reversible error. C. Eligibility Defendant claims that her death sentence must be vacated because the jury found her eligible on the basis of an unconstitutionally vague eligibility factor. As set forth in the facts, the sentencing jury found defendant eligible for death on the basis of two eligibility factors: (1) murder of two or more persons (720 ILCS 9--1(b)(3) (West 1992)), and (2) murder committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan (720 ILCS 5/9--1(b)(11) (West 1992)). Defendant now challenges the constitutionality of section 9--1(b)(11), arguing that its terms are vague such that a limiting construction should be applied to this factor. Defendant also alleges that section 9--1(b)(11) is unconstitutional because its terms do not narrow the class of individuals eligible for the death penalty. This court has previously rejected identical challenges to the constitutionality of section 9--1(b)(11). We have held that section 9--1(b)(11)'s terms are not unconstitutionally vague because they provide sufficient guidelines for the sentencer in determining death eligibility. See People v. Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48, 89-90 (1996); People v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 356, 372-73 (1993). Consequently, the need for a limiting instruction has been rejected. In addition, we have held that the terms of section 9-- 1(b)(11) sufficiently narrow the class of eligible defendants by placing the necessary restraint on the sentencer's discretion to impose death. See People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 191 (1996). We are not persuaded that we should reconsider these holdings. Therefore, we adhere to our prior decisions that section 9-- 1(b)(11) is constitutionally valid. D. Aggravation Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State's witness Joanne Roberts to testify during the aggravation/mitigation phase of the sentencing hearing that she received death threats over the telephone from an unknown male, who warned her not to testify against defendant. Joanne Roberts testified that she had met defendant while both were incarcerated in Cook County jail. Roberts knew that defendant was a member of the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang. Roberts testified that in June of 1993 she and defendant had a conversation in which defendant stated that her codefendant, Jackie Montanez, was going to turn states on her. Roberts claimed that defendant then asked her to kill Montanez. Roberts refused and defendant replied that she would take care of it herself. Roberts subsequently reported her conversation with defendant to prosecutors. On July 29, 1993, Roberts was released from jail and placed on an electronic home monitoring system for her own safety. Roberts testified that in August of 1993, shortly after her release and while at home, she received a phone call from defendant in which defendant asked her why she had turned against her, and told Roberts that she would be dealt with later on for that. Roberts further testified that she received another phone call about a week prior to her testimony at defendant's death penalty hearing in November of 1993, which she described in the following manner: Q. [Assistant State's Attorney:] Directing your attention to approximately last week, did you have occasion again to be contacted by someone from the Disciples? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did that person identify himself? A. He called me from the penitentiary and he said he was--he was one of the--one of the, what do you call them, was one of the ones that call shots over there. And he said that he was going to have me killed for turning states on them for telling them--for telling on them. And he just went on and on and on. MR. LYNCH [defense attorney]: Judge, may I have a sidebar? Defense counsel objected that evidence of this threat was inadmissible because there was no connection established between it and defendant. The trial court overruled the objection because defendant's connection to this threat was a reasonable inference to be drawn from the previous conversations. Roberts then resumed her testimony regarding the phone call: Q. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury at that time what he said to you? A. He said that he was--he was one of the chiefs from the Disciples and that if I testified against Muneca [defendant], that he was going to have me killed. And he knew that [sic] where I lived and everything. And he was just going on and on with the same thing. And I just hung up on him. Q. Now, during your time in Cook County Jail, did you have occasion to learn whether or not Marilyn Mulero had any rank with her gang inside the jail? A. Yes, she did. Q. And what was her rank? A. She was calling it for the second floor. She had the second floor. Defendant argues that Roberts' testimony regarding a threat by an unknown male was inadmissible. According to defendant, the evidence was neither relevant nor reliable because the State failed to establish a connection between defendant and the third party's threat. In support of her argument, defendant points out that the evidence failed to show that she had ordered this phone call, or that she even knew of it, or that she had any familiarity with the unidentified male who made the call. Instead, the only connection between defendant and this threat was that the unknown male caller identified himself as a member of the Maniac Latin Disciples, the gang to which defendant belonged. Defendant contends that this connection is insufficient to meet the reliability standard for the admission of evidence at a death sentencing hearing. Moreover, defendant contends that it is not reliable to infer that, because defendant had previously spoken with Roberts, she was responsible for a phone call months later from an unknown man who made the claim that he would kill her. Because Roberts' testimony as to the third party threat lacked relevance and reliability, defendant concludes that it was improperly admitted. Furthermore, because that testimony concerned the threat to kill a prosecution witness, it was prejudicial to defendant. It is well established that the evidentiary rules which apply at trial do not apply during the aggravation/mitigation phase of the death penalty hearing. These rules are inapplicable because it is important that the sentencing authority possess the fullest information possible with respect to the defendant's life, character, criminal record and the circumstances of the particular offense. See People v. Fair, 159 Ill. 2d 51, 90 (1994); People v. Brisbon, 129 Ill. 2d 200, 218-19 (1989). The only requirement regarding admissibility of evidence at this stage is that it be relevant and reliable, the determination of which lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See People v. Williams, 164